g69r 6Y9E0 19Z1

WM

AYVHSIT SD3TIOO ALINIBL

‘ sf be :

ins NR)

FROM THE LIBRARY OF
TRINITY COLLEGE

TORONTO

me

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2006 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

https://archive.org/details/saintpaulsepistlOOunknuoft

TIL.
THE FIRST ROMAN CAPTIVITY. od

“i | , :
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. —

3. :
EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

Cambridge :
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

—

Wits

SAINT PAUL’S

EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS

AND TO

PHILEMON.

A REVISED TEXT
WITH

INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, AND DISSERTATIONS.

BY

J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D.,

BISHOP OF DURHAM,

NEW EDITION.

Dondon:
MACMILLAN AND CQ,

1879

[The Right of Translation is reserved.]

G77

MIMHTAl MOY fINECOE KAOBWC KAW YPICTOY

a“ , U
IlavAos yevopevos péeytotos vmoypappos.
CLEMENT.

a tole § o ’ ,
Ovx ws HavAos Stataccopa vyiv’ exeivos amoatoXos,
Cad A , lod a
€yo Katakpitos’ ékeivos edevOepos, eyd S€ péexpe viv SovdAos.
IGNATIUS.

Ovre ey ovTe GXos Gpotos enol Svvatar KxataxoAovbAoat
tT copi U ( i évdofou IlavA
7 ia Tov pakapiov Kai évdogou TavaAou.
POLYCARP.

TO THE

_ RIGHT REV. EDWARD HAROLD BROWNE, D.D., i

LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, es

IN SINCERE ADMIRATION ae
oR $ ’ oF 6 ;

HIS PERSONAL CHARACTER AND EPISCOPAL WORK \
AND IN .
GRATEFUL RECOGNITION

or

THE PRIVILEGES OF A PRIVATE FRIENDSHIP.

; :
Ne Rae ee

ih

pid hci

Uenieah eee

|

J Pa Xu a aa ae ary
eel By ” ri a eka cated Ses
~—/ :
i ae r a Lect Hon ie
— : 3 aes - : a a
4 7 7 - _ ean _ a :
a 7 7 : i - Ss ae) a ="
7 : : oe
_ >| 7 " 7 ¢
; : eS ; ey 8 Say
: a : ' ar we
: 7 : : 44a, Vo SS i.
7 : a
4 - = ’ eal _ <om ae” Ar -
i - a_i - are - 7 a Sst -6 ear
is 7 - ‘ “ oy = ie a
7 : vale : 7 : ne arti \
Soy i : 7 Manes i) eR
7 = a
: : = o
- =. 7 - i
7 =
.
:
;
. a
7 7
eae. :
; Sy ode YS
_ " Ans =] mf Fi
_ Ge i fo
ae
;
:
:
z

: ae , eee
Aye; ae ies un

booettns " ‘ ee oy Mi yar.

a
;

See ae
es Pena s
agrhay
a 7 7
oo . a iv ; nh 7 bis
no
es tee

roe
nics
—

on

a ae ia
oar

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

On the completion of another volume of my commentary, I
wish again to renew my thanks for the assistance received
from previous labourers in the same field. Such obligations
must always be great; but it is not easy in a few words to
apportion them fairly, and I shall not make the attempt. I
have not consciously neglected any aid which might render
this volume more complete; but at the same time I venture
to hope*that my previous commentaries have established my
claim to be regarded as an independent worker, and in the
present instance more especially I have found myself obliged
to diverge widely from the treatment of my predecessors, and
to draw largely from other materials than those which they
have collected.

In the preface to a previous volume I expressed an in-
tention of appending to my commentary on the Colossian
Epistle an essay on ‘Christianity and Gnosis. This intention
has not been fulfilled in the letter; but the subject enters
largely into the investigation of the Colossian heresy, where
it receives as much attention as, at all events for the pre-
sent, it seems to require. It will necessarily come under dis-
cussion again, when the Pastoral Epistles are taken in hand.

The question of the genuineness of the two epistles con-
tained in this volume has been deliberately deferred. It
could not be discussed with any advantage apart from the
Epistle to the Ephesians, for the three letters are inseparably

Vill Preface.

bound together. Meanwhile however the doctrinal and_his-
torical discussions will, if I mistake not, have furnished answers
to the main objections which have been urged; while the
commentary will have shown how thoroughly natural the
language and thoughts are, if conceived as arising out of an
immediate emergency. More especially it will have been made
apparent that the Epistle to the Colossians hangs together
as a whole, and that the phenomena are altogether adverse
to any theory of interpolation such as that recently put forward
by Professor Holtzmann.

In the commentary, as well as in oie introduction, it has
been a chief aim to illustrate and develope the theological
conception of the Person of Christ, which underlies the Epistle
to the Colossians. The Colossian heresy for instance owes
its importance mainly to the fact that it throws out this
conception into bolder relief. To this portion of the subject
therefore I venture to direct special attention.

I cannot conclude without offermg my thanks to Mr A. A.
VanSittart, who, as on former occasions, has given his aid
in correcting the proof sheets of this volume; and to the
Rev. J. J. Scott, of Trinity College, who has prepared the
index. I wish also to express my obligations to Dr Schiller-
Szinessy, of whose talmudical learning I have freely availed
myself in verifying Frankel’s quotations and in other ways.
I should add however that he is not in any degree responsible
for my conclusions, and has not even seen what I have written.

Trinity CoLuErcE,
April 30, 1875.

CONTENTS.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
INTRODUCTION.

I. The Churches of the Ly cvis......c.cccecacsecocavseccovcsees
IE. The Colosstan Heresy |v... ..0..sescccncensssgsatesroesgenees
Ill. Character and Contents of the Episile............0.00+

LATA EAE oro a ssennacis sn saewien talasosessadanrivien Sess weuee os
On some Various Readings in the Epistle ................6
On the Meaning Of mr popa...........ccccececressecsscescecsseecs
DHE: Pte JEON LAOMICOR ose ince. ceveseosenianivsunevers codec

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

NE EC POI LY cree Gales! sah csisn capers ar heccasans'scthedancwanepdapees
MET TU CP E BW Jeon dade Sh ainicwsiayidave Whumishien te a ieesbacaadveeantics

DISSERTATIONS.
Bee SMe IUMNAE. MBORA. 005. dusnscunscondeiss denvasensaasecnss
2. Origin and Affinities of the Essenes ........0.c..0000+
3. Lssenism and Christiantty.......csccccccccecesccereesceses

PEE ss 5 dpebgiaguwsseesdasbascnauscassadonadisestenenpaqaleenarensss

131—245
246—256
257—273.
274—300

303—329
333—346

349—354
355—396
397—A19.

421—430

I.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

YING in, or overhanging, the valley of the Lycus, a aasioe
tributary of the Meander, were three neighbouring Gnea’
The river flows, “°°

towns, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossee’*.

1 The following are among the most
important books of travel relating to
this district; Pococke Description of
the East and Some Other Countries, Vol.
u, Part 1, London 17453; Chandler
Travels in Asia Minor etc., Oxford
1775; Leake Zour in Asia Minor,
London 1824; Arundell Discoveries in
Asia Minor, London 1834; Hamilton
Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and
Armenia, London 1842; Fellows Asia
Minor, London 1839, Discoveries in
Lycia, London 1840; Davis Anatolica,
London 18743; Tchihatcheff Asie Mi-
neure, Description Physique, Statis-
tique et Archéologique, Paris 1853 etc.,
with the accompanying Atlas (1860) ;
Laborde Voyage de V’Asie Mineure
(the expedition itself took place in
1826, but the date on the title-page
is 1838, and the introduction was
written in 1861); Le Bas Voyage
Archéologique en Gréce et en Asie
Mineure, continued by Waddington
and not yet completed; Texier De-
scription de VAsie Mineure, Vol. 1
(1839). Itis hardly necessary to add
the smaller works of Texier and Le
Bas on Asie Mineure (Paris 1862, 1863)
in Didot’s series L’Univers, as these
have only a secondary value. Of the

COL. y f

books enumerated, Hamilton’s work
is the most important for the topo-
graphy, etc.; Tchihatcheff’s for the
physical features; and Le Bas and
Waddington’s for the inscriptions, ete.
The best maps are those of Hamilton
and Tchihatcheff: to which should be
added the Karte von Klein-Asien by
v. Vincke and others, published by
Schropp, Berlin 1844.

Besides books on Asia Minor gene-
rally, some works relating especially to
the Seven Churches may be mentioned.
Smith’s Survey of the Seven Churches of
Asia (1678) is a work of great merit for
the time, and contains the earliest de-
scription of the sites of these Phrygian
cities. It was published in Latin first,
and translated by its author after-
wards. Arundell’s Seven Churches
(1828) is a well-known book. Allom and
Walsh’s Constantinople and the Scenery
of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor
illustrated (1850) gives some views of
this district. Svoboda’s Seven Churches
of Asia (1869) contains 20 photographs
and an introduction by the Rev. H. B.
Tristram. This is a selection from
a larger series of Svoboda’s photo-
graphs, published separately.

Their
neigh-
bourhcod
and inter-
course.

Physical
forces at
work,

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

roughly speaking, from east to west; but at this point, which
is some few miles above its junction with the Meander, its
direction is more nearly from south-east to north-west’.
Laodicea and Hierapolis stand face to face, being situated
respectively on the southern and northern sides of the valley,
at a distance of six miles’, and within sight of each other,
the river lying in the open plain between the two. The
site of Colossee is somewhat higher up the stream, at a distance
of perhaps ten or twelve miles*® from the point where the
road between Laodicea and Hierapolis crosses the Lycus.
Unlike Laodicea.and Hierapolis, which overhang the valley on
opposite sides, Colossze stands immediately on the river-bank,
the two parts of the town being divided by the stream. The
three cities lie so near to each other, that it would be quite
possible to visit them all in the course of a single day.

Thus situated, they would necessarily hold constant in-
tercourse with each other. We are not surprised therefore
to find them so closely connected in the earliest ages of
Christianity. It was the consequence of their position that
they owed their knowledge of the Gospel to the same evan-
gelist, that the same phases of thought prevailed in them,
and that they were exposed to the same temptations, moral
as well as intellectual.

The physical features of the neighbourhood are very striking,
Two potent forces of nature are actively at work to change the
face of the country, the one destroying old landmarks, the other
creating fresh ground.

On the one hand, the valley of the Lycus was and is

1 The maps differ very considerably
in this respect, nor do the statements
of travellers always agree. The direc-
tion of the river, as given in the text,
accords with the maps of Hamilton and
Tchihatcheff, and with the accounts
of the most accurate writers.

* Anton. Itin. p. 337 (Wesseling)
gives the distance as 6 miles, See also

Fellows Asia Minor p. 283, Hamilton
I.p.514. The relative position of the
two cities appears in Laborde’s view,
ply =xxiz:

3 I do not find any distinct notice
of the distance; but, to judge from the
maps and itineraries of modern tra-
vellers, this estimate will probably be
found not very far wrong.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. ce

especially liable to violent earthquakes. The same danger Frequent
indeed. extends over large portions of Asia Minor, but this mt
district is singled out by ancient writers’ (and the testimony

of modern travellers confirms the statement’), as the chief
theatre of these catastrophes. Not once or twice only in the
history of Laodicea do we read of such visitations laying waste

the city itself or some flourishing town in the neighbourhood’.
Though the exterior surface of the earth shows no traces of
recent volcanoes, still the cavernous nature of the soil and

the hot springs and mephitic vapours abounding here indicate

the presence of those subterranean fires which from time to

time have manifested themselves in this work of destruction.

But, while the crust of the earth is constantly broken up Deposits
by these forees from beneath, another agency is actively em- een
ployed above ground in laying a new surface. If fire has
its fitful outbursts of devastation, water is only less powerful in
its gradual work of reconstruction. The lateral streams which
swell the waters of the Lycus are thickly impregnated with
calcareous matter, which they deposit in their course. The
travertine formations of this valley are among the most re-
markable in the world, surpassing even the striking pheno-
mena of Tivoli and Clermont*. Ancient monuments ‘are
buried, fertile lands overlaid, river-beds choked up and streams
diverted, fantastic grottoes and cascades and archways of stone
i formed, by this strange capricious power, at once destructive
and creative, working silently and relentlessly through long
ages. Fatal to vegetation, these incrustations spread like a

stony shroud over the ground.

Gleaming like glaciers on the

hill-side they attract the eye of the traveller at a distance

1 Strabo xii. 8 (p. 578) ro wodUrpyrov
THs Xwpas Kal TO evoetcrov’ el yap
Tis Gyn, Kal 9 Aaodlkea evoecoros, Kat
THs tAno.oxapov 6¢ Kdpovpa, Ioann.
Lyd. p. 349 (ed. Bonn.) auxvdrepov
celerot, ola Ta wept THv Ppvylas Aaodi-
welav kal thy map avi Lepdv wodw.

* Thus Pococke (p. 71) in 1745 writes

of Denizli, which is close to Laodicea,
‘The old town was destroyed about 25
years past by an earthquake, in which
12,000 people perished.’

3 See below, p. 38.

4 Tchihatcheff P. 1. Geogr. Phys.
Comp. p. 344 8q., esp. p. 353. See the
references below, pp. 9 sq., 15.

I—Z

4 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

of twenty miles’, and form a singularly striking feature in

scenery of more than common beauty and impressiveness.
Produce At the same time, along with these destructive agencies,
ean "the fertility of the district was and is unusually great. Its
a Ag rich pastures fed large flocks of sheep, whose fleeces were of
a superior quality; and the trade in dyed woollen goods was
the chief source of prosperity to these towns. For the bounty
of nature was not confined to the production of the material,
but extended also to the preparation of the fabric. The
mineral streams had chemical qualities, which were highly
valued by the dyer’. Hence we find that all the three towns,
with which we are concerned, were famous in this branch of
trade. At Hierapolis, as at Thyatira, the guild of the dyers
appears in the inscriptions as an important and influential
body*. Their colours vied in brilliancy with the richest
scarlets and purples of the farther East*. Laodicea again was
famous for the colour of its fleeces, probably a glossy black,

which was much esteemed’,
of dyers®,

1 Fellows Asia Minor p. 283.

2 See note 4.

3 Boeckh no, 3924 (comp. Anatolica
P. 104) TovTO To NpGov Zrepavy 7 épya-
ola rav Badéwr, at Hierapolis. See
Laborde, pl.xxxv. In another inscrip-
tion too (Le Bas and Waddington, no.
1687) there is mention of the purple-
dyers, roppupaBaders.

4 Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 630) gore 88
kal mpos Bapyy éplwv Oavpacrds obpu-
weTpov TO Kara THv ‘Iepdv wédw VSwp,
woTe Ta ex THY puLov Batroueva evd-
pura elvac Tots ék THs KOKKoV Kal Tots
adoupyéow.

5 Strabo xii. 8. 16 (p. 578) dépe & 6
mept tv Aaodlkecay rémos mpoBdrwy
dperas ovK els wadaxdryra pdvov rap
éplwv, kal trav Midryolwy diadéper,
add Kal els thy Kopatny xpday, wore
kal mpocodetovrac Aaumpos dm’ altar,
womep Kal of Kodogonvol dro rod éuw-

Here also we read of a guild
And lastly, Colosse gave its name to a peculiar

viov Xpwuaros, tAyclov olkovvres. For
this strange adjective xopatds (which
seems to be derived from xépaté and to
mean ‘raven-black’) see the passages
in Hase and Dindorf’s Steph. Thes.
In Latin we find the form coracinus,
Vitruv. viii. 3 § 14 ‘Aliis coracino co-
lore,’ Laodicea being mentioned in the
context. Vitruvius represents this as
the natural colour of the fleeces, and
attributes it to the water drunk by the
sheep. See also Plin. N. H. viii. 48
§ 73. So too Hieron. adv. Jovin. ii.
21 (II. p. 358) ‘Laodicer indumentis
ornatus incedis.’ The ancient accounts
of the natural colour of the fleeces in
this neighbourhood are partially con-
firmed by modern travellers ; e.g. Po-
cocke p. 74, Chandler p. 228.

6 Boeckh Corp. Inser. 3938 [} ép-
yaola] trav yadelwy wal Badéwy rar]
&Noupy[o]y. ;

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 5

dye, which seems to have been some shade of purple, and
from which it derived a considerable revenue’.

1. Of these three towns LAODICEA, as the most important, ;, TLaopr-
deserves to be considered first. Laodice was a common name x, Cire
among the ladies of the royal house of the Seleucide, as Ph
Antiochus was among the princes. Hence Antiochia and Lao-
dicea occur frequently as the designations of cities within
the dominions of the Syrian kings. Laodicea on the Lycus’,
as it was surnamed to distinguish it from other towns so
called, and more especially perhaps from its near neighbour
Laodicea Catacecaumene, had borne in succession the names
of Diospolis and Rhoas*; but when refounded by Antiochus
Theos (B.C. 261—246), it was newly designated after his wife
Laodice*. It is situated’ on an undulating hill, or group
of hills, which overhangs the valley on the south, being washed
on either side by the streams of the Asopus and the Caprus,

tributaries of the Lycus®

1 See the passage of Strabo quoted
p. 4, notes. The place gives its name
to the colour, and not conversely,
as stated in Blakesley’s Herod. vii.
113. See also Plin. N. H. xxi. 9 § 27,
‘In vepribus nascitur cyclaminum ...
flos ejus colossinus in coronas admit-
titur,’ a passage which assists in de-
termining the colour.

2 émt Avy, Boeckh Corp. Inser. no.
3938, Ptol. Geogr. v. 2, Tab. Pent.
‘laudicium pilycum’; pds [7@] Avxy,
Eckhel Num. Vet. 111. p. 166, Strabo
l.c., Boeckh C. I. 5881, 5893; mpds AvKor,
Boeckh 6478. A citizen was styled
Aaodixeds dad Avxov, Diog. Laert. ix.
12 § 116; C.I.L. vi. 374; comp. repi
tov Avxoy Appian. Mithr. 20.

3 Plin. N. H. v. 29.

4 Steph. Byz. s. v., who quotes the
oracle in obedience to which (ds éxéAev-
ge Leds vyiBpeuérns) it was founded.

* For descriptions of Laodicea see
Smith p. 250 sq., Pococke p. 71 sq.,
Chandler p. 224 sq., Arundell Seven

Behind it rise the snow-capped

Churches p.84 8q., Asia Minor 11, p, 180
sq., Fellows Asia Minor 280 sq., Hamil-
ton 1. p. 514 8q., Davis Anatolica p.
92 8q., Tchihatcheff P. 1. p. 252 sq.,
258sq. See also the views in Laborde,
pl. xxxix, Allom and Walsh 11. p. 86,
and Svoboda phot. 36—38.

The modern Turkish name is Eski-

hissar, ‘the Old Castle,’ corresponding |

to the modern Greek, Paledkastro,
& common name for the sites of an-
cient cities ; Leake p. 251. On the
ancient site itself there is no town or
village; the modern city Denizli is a
few miles off.

6 The position of Laodicea with
respect to the neighbouring streams is
accurately described by Pliny N. H.
v. 29 ‘Imposita est Lyco flumini, la-
tera affluentibus Asopo et Capro’; see
Tchihatcheff P. 1. p. 258. Strabo
xii. (1. c.) is more careless in his de-
scription (for it can hardly be, as
Tchihatcheff assumes, that. he has
mistaken one of these two tributaries

Its grow-
ing pros-
perity.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

heights of Cadmus, the lofty mountain barrier which shuts in
the south side of the main valley’, A place cf no great
importance at first, it made rapid strides in the last days
of the republic and under the earliest Cesars, and had be-
come, two or three generations before St Paul wrote, a po-
pulous and thriving city*, Among its famous inhabitants
are mentioned the names of some philosophers, sophists, and
rhetoricians, men renowned in their day but forgotten or
almost forgotten now*. More to our purpose, as illustrating
the boasted wealth and prosperity of the city, which appeared
as a reproach and a stumblingblock in an Apostle’s eyes*, are
the facts, that one of its citizens, Polemo, became a king and a
father of kings, and that another, Hiero, having accumulated
enormous wealth, bequeathed all his property to the people
and adorned the city with costly gifts’. To the good fortune
of her principal sons, as well as to the fertility of the country
around, the geographer Strabo ascribes the increase and pros-
perity of Laodicea. The ruins of public buildings still bear
testimony by their number and magnificence to the past great-
ness of the city®.

for the Lycus itself), évraiéa 62 Kat
0 Kampos kal 6 Avxos cuuBidrde 7
Maiavipy morau@ morauds evueyédns,
where évraida refers to 6 mept rv
Aaodixeay roros, and where by the
junction of the stream with the Mzx-
ander must be intended the junction
of the combined stream of the Lycus
and Caprus. On the coins of Lao-
dicea (Eckhel 111. p. 166, Mionnet tv.
p- 330, ib. Suppl. vir. p. 587, 589)
the Lycus and Caprus appear to-
gether, being sometimes represented
as.a wolf and a wild boar. The Asopus
is omitted, either as being a less im-
portant stream or as being less capa-
ble of symbolical representation. Of
modern travellers, Smith (p. 250), and
after him Pococke (p. 72), have cor-
rectly described the position of the
streams. Chandler (p. 227), misled by
Strabo, mistakes the Caprus for the

Lycus and the Lycus for the Meander.
The modern name of the Lycus is
Tchoruk Su.

1 The modern name of Cadmus is
Baba-Dagh, ‘ The father of mountains.’

2 Strabo xii. l. c. 9 68 Aaodlkera
bixpa mpérepoy ovca avénow ehaBev é’
nudy Kal TGv jueréowv marépwy, Kalroe
kaxwietoa é€x modopxlas ért McOpiddérov
Tov Evmdropos. Strabo flourished in
the time of Augustus and the earlier
years of Tiberius. The growing im-
portance of Laodicea dates from before
the age of Cicero: see p. 7.

3 Strabo 1. c.; Diog. Laert. ix. 11
§ 106, 12 § 116; Philostr. Vit. Soph.
i, 25; Eckhel Doctr. Num. Vet. 111.
p. 162, 163 sq.

* Rey. iii, 17; see below p. 43.

® Strabo 1. c. On this family sce
Ephemeris Epigraphica 1. p. 270 sq.

6 The ruins of Laodicea have formed

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

Not less important, as throwing light on the Apostolic
history, is the political status of Laodicea. Asia Minor
under the Romans was divided into districts, each compris-
ing several towns and having its-chief city, in which the

courts were held from time to time by the proconsul or
legate of the province, and where the taxes from the sub-

ordinate towns were collected’. Each of these political ag~

gregates was styled in Latin conventus, in Greek Sdiotenow—

a term afterwards borrowed by the Christian Church, being
applied to a similar ecclesiastical aggregate, and thus natu-
ralised in the languages of Christendom as diocese. At the
head of the most important of these political dioceses, the
‘Cibyratic convention’ or ‘jurisdiction,’ as it was called, com-
prising not less than twenty-five towns, stood Laodicea’.
Here in times past Cicero, as proconsul of Cilicia, had held
his court®; hither at stated seasons flocked suitors, advo-

the quarry out of which the modern
town of Denizli is built. Yet notwith-
standing these depredations they are
still very extensive, comprising an
amphitheatre, two or three theatres,
an aqueduct, ete. The amphitheatre
was built by the munificence of a
citizen of Laodicea only a few years
after St Paul wrote, as the inscription
testifies ; Boeckh C. I. no. 3935. See
especially Hamilton 1. p. 515 sq., who
describes these ruins as ‘bearing the
stamp of Roman extravagance and
luxury, rather than of the stern and
massive solidity of the Greeks.’

1 See Becker and Marquardt Rém.
Alterth, 111. 1. p. 136 8q.

2 See Cie. ad Att. v. 21, ‘Idibus
Februariis ... forum institueram agere
Laodices Cibyraticum,’ with the re-
ferences in the next note: comp. also
Plin. N. H. v. 29 ‘Una (jurisdictio)
appellatur Cibyratica. Ipsum (i. e.
Cibyra) oppidum Phrygie est. Con-
veniunt eo xxv civitates, celeberrima
urbe Laodicea.’

Besides these passages, testimony is.

borne to the importance of the Ciby-
ratic ‘conventus’ by Strabo, xiii. 4
§ 17 (p. 631), €v rats peylorais éerdte-
Tat dioixyocect THS “Aclas 4 KiBuparixy.
It will be remembered also that Ho-
race singles out the Cibyratica negotia
(Zpist. i. 6. 33) to represent Oriental
trade generally. The importance of
Laodicea may be inferred from the fact
that, though the union was named after
Cibyra, its head-quarters were from the
first fixed at or soon afterwards trans-
ferred to Laodicea.

8 See ad Fam. ii. 17, iii. g, 7, 8,
ix. 25, xili. 54, 67, xv. 4; ad Att. v. 16,
17, 20, 21, Vi. I, 2, 3, 7 He visited
Laodicea on several occasions, some-
times making a jong stay there, and
not a few of his letters are written
thence. See especially his account of
his work there, ad Att. vi. 2, ‘Hoc foro
quod egi ex Idibus Februariis Laodicex
ad Kalendas Maias omnium dioece-
sium, preter Cilici#, mirabilia que-
dam efficimus; ita multw civitates,

7

Its politi-
cal rank,
as the
capital of a
conventus.

Its religi-
ous wor-
ship,

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

cates, clerks, sheriffs’-officers, tax-collectors, pleasure-seekers,
courtiers—all those crowds whom business or leisure or policy
or curiosity would draw together from a wealthy and populous
district, when the representative of the laws and the majesty
of Rome appeared to receive homage and to hold his assize’.
To this position as the chief city of the Cibyratic union the
inscriptions probably refer, when they style Laodicea the
‘metropolis?’ And in its metropolitan rank we see an
explanation of the fact, that to Laodicea, as to the centre
of a Christian diocese also, whence their letters would rea-
dily be circulated among the neighbouring brotherhoods, two
Apostles addressed themselves in succession, the one writing
from his captivity in Rome’, the other from his exile at
Patmos*.

On the religious worship of Laodicea very little special in-
formation exists. Its tutelary deity was Zeus, whose guardian-
ship had been recognised in Diospolis, the older name of the
city, and who, having (according to the legend) commanded its
rebuilding, was commemorated on its coins with the surname
Laodicenus®. Occasionally he is also called Aseis, a title which
perhaps reproduces a Syrian epithet of this deity, ‘the mighty.’
If this interpretation be correct, we have a link of connexion
between Laodicea and the religions of the farther Hast—a con-
nexion far from improbable, considering that Laodicea was

etc.’ Altogether Laodicea seems to quardtl.c. p. 138 sq. It had lost its
have been second in importance to original sense, as the mother city of a
none of the cities in his province, ex- colony. Laodicea is styled ‘ metropolis’
cept perhaps Tarsus. See also the on the coins, Mionnet rv. p. 321.
notice, in Verr. Act. ii. 1. ¢. 30. 3 Col. iv. 16 with the notes. See
1 The description which Dion Chry- also below p. 37, and the introduction
sostom gives in his eulogy of Celene to the Epistle to the Ephesians.
(Apamea Cibotus), the metropolis of 4 Rev. iii. 14.
a neighbouring ‘ dioececis,’ enables us 5 See Eckhel m1. p. 159 sq. (passim),
to realise the concourse which gather- Mionnet ty. p. 315 sq., ib. Suppl. vit.
ed together on these occasions: Orat. pp. 578 sq. (passim). In the coins com-
XXXV (II. p. 69) Euvdyeras tAHO0s dvOpd- mMemorating an alliance with some
muy Sixagouevuw, Sixafdvrwv, tyyeudvwv, other city Laodicea is represented by
inrnpeT Gy, olker Gv, K.T.X. Zeus; e.g. Mionnet Iv. pp. 320, 324,
? On this word see Becker and Mar- 331 sq., Suppl. vir. pp. 586, 589.

oS an ee

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

refounded by a Syrian king and is not unlikely to have
adopted some features of Syrian worship’.

2. On the north of the valley, opposite to the sloping 2. Hrera-
hills which mark the site of Laodicea, is a broad level terrace Tts situa

jutting out from the mountain side and overhanging the plain

with almost precipitous sides.

the vast ruins of HIERAPOLIS’.

On this plateau are scattered

The mountains upon which

it abuts occupy the wedge of ground between the Meander
and the Lycus; but, as the Meander above its junction
with the Lycus passes through a narrow ravine, they blend,

1 ACEIC or ACEIC AAOAIKE@N. See
Waddington Voyage en Asie Mineure
aw point de vue Numismatique (Paris
1853) pp. 25, 268q. Mr Waddington
adopts a suggestion communicated to
him by M. de Longpérier that this
word represents the Aramaic NITY ‘the
strong, mighty,’ which appears also in
the Arabic ‘ Aziz.’ This view gains
some confirmation from the fact, not
mentioned by Mr Waddington, that
“Aiigos was an epithet of the Ares of
Edessa: Julian Orat, iv; comp. Cure-
ton Spic. Syr. p. 80, and see Lagarde
Gesamm. Abhandl.p.16. Onthe other
hand this Shemitic word elsewhere,
when adopted into Greek or Latin, is
written”A (:fosor Azizus: see Garrucci in
the Archgologia xum11. p. 45 ‘ Tyrio Sep-
timio Azizo,’ and Boeckh Corp. Inscr.
9893 Aficos ’Ayplira Zvpos. M. de Long-
périer offers the alternative that ACEIC,
i.e, “Acls, is equivalent to “Acarixés.
An objection to this view, stronger
than those urged by Mr Waddington,
is the fact that ’Acis seems only to be
used as a feminine adjective. M.
Renan points to the fact that this
ZEYC ACEIC is represented with his
hand on the horns of a goat, and on
the strength of this coincidence would
identify him with ‘the Azazel of the
Semites’ (Saint Paul, p. 359), though
tradition and orthography alike point to
some other derivation of Azazel (OtNtY).

2 For descriptions of Hierapolis,
see Smith p. 245 sq., Pococke p. 75
sq., Chandler 229 sq., Arundell Seven
Churches p. 79 8q., Hamilton p. 517
sq., Fellows Asia Minor p. 283 sq.
For the travertine deposits see espe-
cially the description and plates in
Tchihatcheff P. 1. p. 345, together with
the views in Laborde (pl. xxxii—
xxxviii), and Svoboda (photogr. 41
—47). Tchihatcheff repeatedly calls
the place Hieropolis; but this form,
though commonly used of other towns
(see Steph. Byz. s, v. ‘Iepaméd\us, Leake
Num. Hell. p. 67), appears not to occur
as a designation of the Phrygian city,
which seems always to be written Hie-
rapolis. The citizens however are
sometimes called ‘IeporoNra: on the
coins.

The modern name is given different-
ly by travellers. It is generally called
Pambouk-Kalessi, i.e. ‘ cotton-castle,’
supposed to allude to the appearance
of the petrifactions, though cotton is
grown in the neighbourhood (Hamilton
1. p.517). So Smith, Pococke, Chand-
ler, Arundell, Tchihatcheff, Wadding-
ton, and others. M. Renan says
‘Tambouk, et non Pambouk, Kalessi’
(S. Paul p. 357). Laborde gives the
word Tambouk in some places and
Pambouk in others; and Leake says
‘Hierapolis, now called Tabik-Kale
or Pambuk-Kale’ (p. 252).

tion,

10

Remark-
able

physical
features.

Their
relation to
the Apos-
tolic his-
tory.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

when seen from a distance, with the loftier range of the
Mesogis which overhangs the right bank of the Meander
almost from its source to its embouchure, and form with it
the northern barrier to the view, as the Cadmus range does
the southern, the broad valley stretching between. Thus
Hierapolis may be said to le over against Mesogis, as Laodicea
lies over against Cadmus’.

It is at Hierapolis that the remarkable physical features
which distinguish the valley of the Lycus display themselves
in the fullest perfection. Over the steep cliffs which support
the plateau of the city, tumble cascades of pure white stone,
the deposit of calcareous matter from the streams which, after
traversing this upper level, are precipitated over the ledge
into the plain beneath and assume the most fantastic shapes
in their descent. At one time overhanging in cornices fringed
with stalactites, at another hollowed out into basins or broken
up with ridges, they mark the site of the city at a distance,
glistening on the mountain-side like foaming cataracts frozen
in the fall. .

But for the immediate history of St Paul’s Epistles the
striking beauty of the scenery has no value. It is not
probable that he had visited this district when the letters
to the Colossians and Laodiceans were written. Were it
otherwise, we can hardly suppose that, educated under widely
different influences and occupied with deeper and more absorb-

1 Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 629) says
imepBadotor 6& Thy Mecwylda...rdres
elol mpds per TH Meowyld< xaravrixpd
Aaodixelas ‘ep aods, x.7.X. He can-
not mean that Hierapolis was situated
immediately in or by the Mesogis (for
the name does not seem ever to be ap-
plied to the mountains between the
Lycus and Meander), but that with
respect to Laodicea it stood over a-
gainst the Mesogis, as I have explain-
ed it in the text. The viewin Laborde
(pl. xxxix) shows the appearance of
Hierapolis from Laodicea. Strabo

had himself visited the place and
must have known how it was situated.
Some modern travellers however (e.g.
Chandler and Arundell) speak of the
plateau of Hierapolis as part of the
Mesogis. Steiger (Kolosser p. 33)
gets over the difficulty by translating
Strabo’s words, ‘near the Mesogis but
on the opposite side (i.e. of the Ma-
ander) is the Laodicean Hierapolis’
(to distinguish it from others of the
name); but xaravrixpd) cannot be
separated from Adaodixelas without
violence.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. a i

ing thoughts, he would have shared the enthusiasm which this
scenery inspires in the modern traveller. Still it will give
a reality to our conceptions, if we try to picture to ourselves
the external features of that city, which was destined before
long to become the adopted home of Apostles. and other
personal disciples of the Lord, and to play a conspicuous part—
second perhaps only to Ephesus—in the history of the Church
during the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles.

Like Laodicea, Hierapolis was at this time an important Hicrapolis
and a growing city, though not like Laodicea holding metro- eae
politan rank’. Besides the trade in dyed wools, which it Place
shared in common with the neighbouring towns, it had another
‘source of wealth and prosperity peculiar to itself. The streams,
to which the scenery owes the remarkable features already
described, are endowed with valuable medicinal qualities,
while at the same time they are so copious that the ancient
city is described as full of self-made baths*. An inscription,
still legible among the ruins, celebrates their virtues in heroic
verse, thus apostrophizing the city :

Hail, fairest soil in all broad Asia’s realm;

Hail, golden city, nymph divine, bedeck’d

With flowing rills, thy jewels®. |
Coins of Hierapolis too are extant of various types, on which
Zasculapius and Hygeia appear either singly or together’.
To this fashionable watering-place, thus favoured by nature,
seekers of pleasure and seekers of health alike were drawn.

To the ancient magnificence of Hierapolis its extant ruins The mag-
bear ample testimony. More favoured than Laodicea, it has peer enia
not in its immediate neighbourhood any modern town or ™™2*
village of importance, whose inhabitants have been tempted

to quarry materials for their houses out of the memorials of

1 On its ecclesiastical title of me- evpelns mpopepéorarov ofdas amdvrww,
tropolis, see below, p. 69. xalpors, xpvadmone Tepdrrodt, roTua Nup-
2 Strabo le. otrw 8 éoriv AdpOovov dv, vduacw, dydatyot, nexacuéevn.
Td ARVs Tod USaros ware } rods weoTh 4 Mionnet Iv. p. 297, 306, 307,
Tov abroudtwv Badavelwy éort. ib. Suppl. vir. p. 567; Waddington
- ® Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3909, Actdos Voyage etc. p. 24. i

12

Tis religi-
ous wor-
ship.

The Plu-
tonium.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

its former greatness. Hence the whole plateau is covered with
ruins, of which the extent and the good taste are equally re-
markable; and of these the palestra and the therme, as
might be expected, are among the more prominent.

A city, which combined the pursuit of health and of
gaiety, had fitly chosen as its patron deity Apollo, the god
alike of medicine and of festivity, here worshipped especially
as ‘ Archegetes,’ the Founder’. But more important, as illus-
trating the religious temper of this Phrygian city, is another
fact connected with it. In Hierapolis was a spot called the
Plutonium, a hot well or spring, from whose narrow mouth
issued a mephitic vapour immediately fatal to those who
stood over the opening and inhaled its fumes. To the muti-
lated priests of Cybele alone (so it was believed) an immunity
was given from heaven, which freed them from its deadly
effects. Indeed this city appears to have been a chief centre
of the passionate mystical devotion of ancient Phrygia. But
indications are not wanting, that in addition to this older
worship religious rites were borrowed also from other parts

1 Boeckh Corp. Inser. 3905, 3906;
Mionnet rv. pp. 297, 301, 307, ib. Suppl.
vil. p. 568, 569, 570. In coins struck
to commemorate alliances with other
cities, Hierapolis is represented by
Apollo Archegetes : Mionnet rv. p. 303,
ib. Suppl. vir. 572, 573, 574; Wad-
dington Voyage etc. p. 25; and see
Kckhel in. p. 156. On the meaning
of Archegetes, under which name
Apollo was worshipped by other cities
also, which regarded him as their
founder, see Spanheim on Callim.
Hymn. Apoll. 57.

2 Strabo l.c. He himself had seen
the phenomenon and was doubtful how
to account for the immunity of theso
priests, etre Oeia mpovola...eire dvridd-
Tos Tiot duvduect TovTov cuuBalvorros.
See also Plin, N. H. ii. 93 § gg ‘lo-
cum...matris tantum magne sacerdoti
innoxium.’ Dion Cass. (Xiphil, ) lxviii,

27, who also witnessed the phenomenon,
adds od pi kal rh alriay abrod cvvo07-
gat éxw, Ady 6¢ & TE elbov ws eLdor Kal
a@ HKovoa ws #xKovoa. Ammian. Marc.
Xxlil. 6. 18 also mentions this mar-
vel, but speaks cautiously, ‘ut asse-
runt quidam,’ and adds ‘quod qua
causa eveniat, rationibus physicis per-
mittatur.’ Comp. Anthol. v1. p. 190
Et tis drdyéacOae ev dxvee Oavdrov 8’
émOuuel, €& ‘lepds modews Wuxpdv vdwp
wiérw; Stobeus Ecl. i. 34, p.680. La-
borde states (p. 83) that he discovered
by experiment that the waters are
sometimes fatal to animal life and
sometimes perfectly harmless; and if
this be substantiated, we have a solu-
tion of the marvel. Other modern
travellers, who have visited the Pluto-
nium, are Cockerell (Leake p. 342),
and Svoboda. In Svyoboda’s work a
chemical analysis of the waters is given.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUB. 13

of the East, more especially from Egypt’. By the multitude
of her temples Hierapolis established her right to the title of
the ‘sacred city,’ which she bore®*. |

Though at this time we have no record of famous citizens The birth-
at Hierapolis, such as graced the annals of Laodicea, yet a gene- Siena
ration or two later she numbered among her sons one nobler
far than the rhetoricians and sophists, the millionaires and
princes, of whom her neighbour could boast. The lame slave
Epictetus, the loftiest of heathen moralists, must have been
growing up to manhood when the first rumours of the Gospel
reached his native city. Did any chance throw him across
the path of Epaphras, who first announced the glad-tidings
there? Did he ever meet the great Apostle himself, while Epictetus
dragging out his long captivity at Rome, or when after his Sane Ke
release he paid his long-promised visit to the valley of the
Lycus? We should be glad to think that these two men met
together face to face—the greatest of Christian, and the great-
est of heathen preachers. Such a meeting would solve more
than one riddle. A Christian Epictetus certainly was not:
his Stoic doctrine and his Stoic morality are alike apparent ;
but nevertheless his language presents some strange coinci-
dences with the Apostolic writings, which would thus receive
an explanation®. It must be confessed however, that of any
outward intercourse between the Apostle and the philosopher
history furnishes no hint.

3. While the sites of Laodicea and Hierapolis are con- 3, Coxos-
spicuous, so that they were early identified by their ruins, Difficulty
the same is not the case with Cotossz. Only within the paenesy
present generation has the position of this once famous city site.
been ascertained, and even now it lacks the confirmation of any

1 On a coin of Hierapolis, Pluto- where in this neighbourhood. At

Serapis appears seated, while before
him stands Isis with a sistrum in her
hand; Waddington Voyage etc. p. 24.
See also Mionnet tv. pp. 296, 305;
Leake Num. Hell. p. 66.

The worship of Serapis appears else-

Chone (Colosse) is an inscription
recording a vow to this deity; Le Bas
Asie Mineure inscr. 1693 b.

2 Steph. Byz. 8s. v. dad rod lepd mod-
Aa exe.

3 See Philippians, pp. 312, 313.

14

Subterra-

neanchan-
nel of the
Lycus.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

inscription found in situ and giving the name!. Herodotus
states that in Colosse the river Lycus disappears in a sub-
terranean cave, emerging again at a distance of about five
stades?; and this very singular landmark—the underground
passage of a stream for half a mile—might be thought to have
placed the site of the city beyond the reach of controversy.
But this is not the case. In the immediate neighbourhood of
the only ruins which can possibly be identified with Colossz,
no such subterranean channel has been discovered. But on the
other hand the appearance of the river at this point suggests
that at one time the narrow gorge through which it runs, as
it traverses the ruins, was overarched for some distance with in-
crustations of travertine, and that this natural bridge was broken
up afterwards by an earthquake, so as to expose the channel

of the stream’,

1 See however a mutilated inscrip-
tion (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3956) with
the letters... HN@ON, found near Chone.

2 Herod. vii. 30 dixero és KoXoocas,
modw weyadny Ppvylns, év TH AvKos tro-
Taos és xdoua ys éoBalrov dpavice-
Tat, éreiTa Ota oTadiwy ws mévTe pd-
AoTa KN dvadayopevos éxd.Ooe Kal ovTOS
és Tov Malavdpov.

3 This is the explanation of Hamil-
ton (I. p. 509 sq.), who (with the doubt-
ful exception of Laborde) has the merit
of having first identified and described
the site of Colosse. It stands on the
Tchoruk Sf (Lycus) at the point where
it is joined by two other streams, the
Bounar Bashi 84 and the Ak-St. In
confirmation of his opinion, Hamilton
found a tradition in the neighbourhood
that the river had once been covered
over at this spot (p.522). He followed
the course of the Lycus for some dis-
tance without finding any subterrane-
an channel (p. 521 sq.).

It is difficult to say whether the fol-
lowing account in Strabo xii, 8 § 16
(Pp. 578) refers to the Lycus or not;

This explanation seems satisfactory. If it be

bpos Kddwos e& ob cal 6 Avxos fet xai
Gos omovupos TB Bpert 7d wréov 8
ovrTos brd vijs puels clr’ dvaxdWas ouve-
mecev els TAUTO To’s dAXNOLS ToTamols, éu-
daivwv dua kal Td modNUTpHTOY THs Xwpas
kal To ececrov. If the Lycus is meant,
may not cuvérecey imply that this re-
markable feature had changed before
Strabo wrote ?

Laborde (p. 103), who visited the
place before Hamilton, though his ac-
count was apparently not published
till later, fixes on the same site for
Colosse, but thinks that he has dis-
covered the subterranean course of the
Lycus, to which Herodotus refers, much
higher up a stream, ‘close to its source
(‘a dix pas de cette source’), which he
describes as ‘& deux lieues au nord de
Colosse.’ Yet in the same paragraph
he says ‘Or il [Hérodote, exact cice-
rone] savait que le Lycus disparait
prés de Colosse, ville considérable de
la Phrygie’ (the italics are his own).
He apparently does not see the
vast difference between his prés de
Colosse thus widely interpreted and.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 15

rejected, we must look for the underground channel, not within

the city itself, as the words of Herodotus strictly interpreted
require, but at some point higher up the stream. In either

case there can be little doubt that these are the ruins of
Colossee. The fact mentioned by Pliny’, that there is in this Pat i
stream.
city ariver which turns brick into stone, is satisfied by a side
stream flowing into the Lycus from the north, and laying
large deposits of calcareous matter; though in this region, as
we have seen, such a phenomenon is very far from rare. The
site of Colossze then, as determined by these considerations, lies
two or three miles north of the present town of Chonos, the
medizeval Chon, and some twelve miles east of Laodicea.
The Lycus traverses the site of the ruins, dividing the city
into two parts, the necropolis standing on the right or northern
bank, and the town itself on the left.

Commanding the approaches to a pass in the Cadmus range, Its ancient
and standing on a great high-way communicating between vid
Eastern and Western Asia, Colosse at an early date appears
as a very important place. Here the mighty host of Xerxes
halted on its march against Greece; it is mentioned on this
occasion as ‘a great city of Phrygia®’ Here too Cyrus remained
seven days on his daring enterprise which terminated so
fatally; the Greek captain, who records the expedition, speaks
of it as ‘a populous city, prosperous and great®’ But after
this time its glory seems to wane. The political supremacy

the precise év rf of Herodotus himself.
Obviously no great reliance can be
placed on the accuracy of a writer,
who treats his authorities thus. The
subterranean stream which Laborde
saw, and of which he gives a view
(pl. xl), may possibly be the pheno-
menon to which Herodotus alludes ; but
if so, Herodotus has expressed himself
very carelessly. On the whole Hamil-
ton’s solution seems much more proba-
ble. See however Anatolica p. 117 sq.

Arundell’s account (Seven Churches
p. 98 sq., Asia Minor p. 160 sq.) is

very confused and it is not clear
whether he has fixed on the right site
for Colosse; but it bears testimony to
the existence of two subterranean
courses of rivers, though neither of
them is close enough to the city to
satisfy Herodotus’ description.

1 Plin. N. H. xxxi.2§ 20. This is
the Ak-Sé, which has strongly petrify-
ing qualities,

* Herod. vii. 30. See p. 14, note 2.

3 Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6 éfeAavver 5a Ppv-
ylas...els Kodoocds, midw oixovpéryy,
eVdalwova Kal weycdAnr.

16

and later
decline,

Uncertain
ortho-

graphy of
the name,

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS.

of Laodicea and the growing popularity of Hierapolis gradu-
ally drain its strength; and Strabo, writing about two genera-
tions before St Paul, describes it as a ‘small town’’ in the
district of which Laodicea was the capital. We shall there-
fore be prepared to find that, while Laodicea and Hierapolis
both hold important places in the early records of the Church,
Colossee disappears wholly from the pages of history. Its com-
parative insignificance is still attested by its ruins, which are
few and meagre’, while the vast remains of temples, baths,
theatres, aqueducts, gymnasia, and sepulchres, strewing the
extensive sites of its more fortunate neighbours, still bear wit-
It is not
even mentioned by Ptolemy, though his enumeration of towns
includes several inconsiderable places*. Without doubt Colossze
was the least important churth to which any epistle of St Paul
was addressed.

And perhaps also we may regard the variation in the
orthography of the name as another indication of its com-

ness to their ancient prosperity and magnificence.

Are we to write
So far as the evidence goes, the con-
clusion would seem to be that, while Colosse alone occurs
during the classical period and in St Paul’s time, it was after-
wards supplanted by Colassse, when the town itself had either
disappeared altogether or was already passing out of notice‘,

parative obscurity and its early extinction.
Colosse or Colassce ?

1 rodopa, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576). ov. 28, 29 § 29), so that only decayed

~ Plin. N. H. v. 32. § 41 writes ‘Phrygia

...oppida ibi celeberrima preter jam
dicta, Ancyra, Andria, Celene, Colos-
se,’ etc. The commentators, referring
to this passage, overlook the words
‘preeter jam dicta,’ and represent Pliny
as calling Colosse ‘oppidum celeberri-
mum.’ Not unnaturally they find it
difficult to reconcile this expression
with Strabo’s statement. But in fact
Pliny has already exhausted all the
considerable towns, Hierapolis, Lao-
dicea, Apamea, etc., and even much
less important places than these (see

and third-rate towns remain. The
Ancyra here mentioned is not the
capital of Galatia, but a much smaller
Phrygian town.

2 Laborde p. 102 ‘De cette grande
célébrité de Coloss# il ne reste presque
rien: ce sont des substructions sans
suite, des fragments sans grandeur;
les restes d’un théatre de médiocre
dimension, une acropole sans hardi-
esse,’ etc.; comp. Anatolica p. 115.

3 Geogr. V. 2.

* All Greek writers till some cen-
turies after the Christian era write it ©

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS. 17

Considered ethnologically, these three cities are generally pax gi
regarded as belonging to Phrygia. But as they are situated Poppe
on the western border of Phrygia, and as the frontier line th? three

cities,
separating Phrygia from Lydia and Caria was not distinctly

Kodoooal: so Herod. vii. 30, Xen. hand év Kodaccais is read by KP. 17.

Anab. i. 2. 6, Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod.
xiv. 80, Polyen. Strat. vii. 16. 13
though in one or more mss of some
of these authors it is written KoXaccal,
showing the tendency of later scribes.
Colosse is also the universal form in
Latin writers. The coins moreover, even
as late as the reign of Gordian (4.D. 238
—244) when they ceased to be struck,
universally have KOAOCCHNO! (or KO-
AOCHNO!); Mionnet rv. p. 267 8q.:
see Babington Numismatic Chronicle
New series m1. p. 1 8q., 6. In Hie-
rocles (Synecd. p. 666, Wessel.) and
in the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46)
Kodaccal seems to be the original read-
ing of the text, and in later Byzan-
tine writers this form is common, If
Prof. Babington (p. 3) were right in
supposing that it is connected with
kodogods, the question of the correct
spelling might be regarded as settled ;
but in a Phrygian city over which so
many Eastern nations swept in suc-
cession, who shall say to what lan-
guage the name belonged, or what are
its affinities ?

Thus, judging from classical usage,
we should say that KoNocoat was the
old form and that Kodacoat did not
Supplant it till some time after St
Paul’s age. This view is confirmed
-by a review of the authorities for the
different readings in the New Testa-
ment.

In the opening of the episile (i. 1)
the authorities for év Kodoscals are
overwhelming. Itis read by NBDFGL
(A is obliterated here and C is want-
ing); and in the Old Latin, Vulgate,
and Armenian Versions. On the other

COL.

‘in the title.

37. 47, and among the versions by the
Memphitic and the Philoxenian Syriac

(mamas, though the marg.
gives KOACCAIC). In the Peshito also
the present reading represents Kodac-
cats, but as the vowel was not express-
ed originally and depends on the later
pointing, its authority can hardly be
quoted. The Thebaic is wanting here,

In the heading of the epistle how-
ever there is considerably more au-
thority for the form in a. Kodaccaets
is the reading of AB* KP . 37 (Ko\a-
oaes). 47. CO is wanting here, but has
Kodagcoaes in the subscription. On
the other hand Kooocaes (or Konoo-
oats) appears in NB! (according to
Tregelles, but B? Tisch.; see his introd.
p. xxxxviii) DFG (but G has left Ko-
Aacoaers in the heading of one page,
and Ko)aocaes in another) L. 17 (Ko-
Aocaets), in the Latin Version, and in
the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac.
The readings of both Peshito and
Philoxenian (text) here depend on the
vocalisation ; and those of other ver-
sions are not recorded. In the sub-
scription the. preponderance of au-
thority is even more favourable to
Kodaccaecs.

Taking into account the obvious
tendency which there would be in
scribes to make the title rpds Kodoo-
oaeis or mpds Kodaccae’s conform to
the opening év Kodogcats or év Kodac-
cats, aS shown in G, we seem to
arrive at the conclusion that, while éy
Kodoocais was indisputably the original
reading in the opening, apis Kodac-
oae’s was probably the earlier reading
If so, the title must have

ie ]

a

18

Their
political
relations.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

traced, this designation is not persistent’. Thus Laodicea is
sometimes assigned to Caria, more rarely to Lydia’; and again,
Hierapolis is described as half Lydian, half Phrygian’, On
the other hand I have not observed that Colosse is ever re-
garded as other than Phrygian‘, partly perhaps because the
notices relating to it belong to an earlier date when these
several names denoted political as well as ethnological divi-
sions, and their limits were definitely marked in consequence,
but chiefly because it lies some miles to the east of the other

cities, and therefore farther from the doubtful border land.
Phrygia however ceased to have any political significance,

when this country came under the dominion of the Romans.

Politically speaking, the three cities with the rest of the

been added at a somewhat later date ;
which is not improbable.

Connected with this question is the
variation in the adjectival form, -nvés
or -aev’s. Parallels to this double ter-
mination occur in other words; e. g.
Aoxinvés, Aoxiueds; Aaodicnvds, Aao-
dixevs 3 Nixanvds, Nixaevs ; Dayadaoon-
vos, Layadaccevs, etc. The coins, while
they universally exhibit the form in o,
are equally persistent in the termina-
tion -nvds, KOAOCCHNOON 3 and it is
curious that to the form KonXoscnvol
in Strabo xii. 8 § 16 (p. 578) there is
a various reading Ko\acoae’s. Thus,
though there is no necessary con-
nexion between the two, the termina-
tion -nvbs seems to go with the o form,
and the termination -ae’s with the a
form.

For the above reasons I have written
confidently év KoNoccats in the text,
and with more hesitation mpés Kodac-
caeis in the superscription.

1 Strabo, xiii, 4. 12 (p. 628) ra &
etfs él Ta vdria pépn Tots Toots TovTOLS
éumrokas Exec wéxpt mpds tov Tadpor,
wore kal Ta Ppiyia Kal ra Kapexa xal
ra Avdva xal re ra Thy Mucdv Svcdid-
Kpita elvat wapanlrrovTa els &\Anda*

els 6¢ Thy ovyxvow TaiTnv od ptkpa
ovANapyBdver Td Tods ‘Pwyatous wh KaTa
pire duedety adrovs K.T.A.

2 To Phrygia, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p.
576), Polyb. v. 57, and so generally;
to Caria, Orac. Sibyll. iii. 472 Kapav
dyAaoyv doru, Ptol. v. 2, Philostr. Vit.
Soph. i. 25 (though in the context
Philostratus adds that at one time rq
Ppvyia Ewerdrrero); to Lydia, Steph.
Byz. s.v. On the coins the city is
sometimes represented as seated be-
tween two female figures dpyria and
KaAPpIA; Hckhel in. p. 160, comp.

Mionnet rv. p. 329. From its situation
on the confines of the three countries
Laodicea, seems to have obtained the
surname Trimitaria or Trimetaria, by
which it is sometimes designated in
later times: see below, p. 65, note 4,
and comp. Wesseling, Itin. p. 665.

3 Steph. Byz. 8. v. says peratd Bpv-
vylas kat Avélas adds. But generally
Hierapolis is assigned to Phrygia: e.g.
Ptol. v. 2, Vitruv. viii. 3 § ro.

4 Colosse is assigned to Phrygia in
Herod. vil. 30, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6,
Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. xiv. 80, Plin.
N. H. v. 32 § 41, Polyen, Strat. vii.
10. x,

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 19

Cibyratic union belonged at this time to Asia, the procon-
sular province’, As an Asiatic Church accordingly Laodicea
is addressed in the Apocalyptic letter. To this province they
had been assigned in the first instance; then they were handed.
over to Cilicia’; afterwards they were transferred and retrans-
ferred from the one to the other; till finally, before the Chris-
tian era, they became a permanent part of Asia, their original
province. Here they remained, until the close of the fourth
century, when a new distribution of the Roman empire was
made, and the province of Phrygia Pacatiana created with Lao-
dicea as its capital *,

The Epistle to the Colossians supposes a powerful Jewish Important
colony in Laodicea and the neighbourhood. We are not how- 2¢"/s4
ever left to draw this inference from the epistle alone, but the otcede
fact is established by ample independent testimony. When, hood.
with the insolent licence characteristic of Oriental kings, An-
tiochus the Great transplanted two thousand Jewish families
from Babylonia and Mesopotamia into Lydia and Phrygia *, Colony of
we can hardly doubt that among the principal stations of these ee
new colonists would be the two most thriving cities of Phrygia,
which were also the two most important settlements of the
Syrian kings, Apamea and Laodicea, the one founded by
his grandfather Antiochus the First, the other by his father
Antiochus the Second. If the commercial importance of Apa-
mea at this time was greater (for somewhat later it was reck-

oned second only to Ephesus among the cities of Asia Minor

1 After the year B.c. 49 they seem __ sense, as applying to the Roman pro-
to have been permanently attached to vince.

‘Asia’: before that time they are
bandied about between Asia and Ci-
licia. These alternations are traced by
Bergmann de Asia provincia (Berlin,
1846) and in Philologus 1. 4 (1847)
p- 641 sq. See Becker and Marquardt
Rom. Alterth. 11. 1. p. 130 sq. Lao-
dicea is assigned to ‘ Asia’ in Boeckh
Corp. Inscer. 6512, 6541, 6626.

The name ‘Asia’ will be used
throughout this chapter in its political

2 Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 67 ‘ex pro-
vincia mea Ciliciensi, cui scis zpels
dioxjoes Asiaticas [i.e. Cibyraticam,
Apamensem, Synnadensem] attributas
fuisse’; ad Att. v. 2x ‘mea expectatio
Asis nostrarum dicecesium’ and ‘in
hac mea Asia.’ See also above, p. 7,
notes 2, 3.

8 Hierocles Synecd. p. 664 sq. (Wes-
sel.): see below, p. 69.

4 Joseph. Antiq. xii. 3, 4.

2

20

Confisca-
tions of
Tlaccus.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

as a centre of trade), the political rank of Laodicea stood
higher’. When mention is made of Lydia.and Phrygia’,
this latter city especially is pointed out by its position, for it
stood near the frontier of the two countries. A Jewish settle-
ment once established, the influx of their fellow-countrymen
would be rapid and continuous. Accordingly under the Roman
domination we find them gathered here in very large numbers.
When Flaccus the propreetor of Asia (B.C. 62), who was afterwards
accused of maladministration in his province and defended by
Cicero, forbade the contributions of the Jews to the temple-
worship and the consequent exportation of money to Palestine,
he seized as contraband not less than twenty pounds weight in
gold in the single district of which Laodicea was the capital *.
Calculated at the rate of a half-shekel for each man, this sum
represents a population of more than eleven thousand adult
freemen *: for women, children, and slaves were exempted. It
must be remembered however, that this is only the sum which

1 Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576) efra exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit edicto

*Amdpueia 7 KiBwros Neyoudyn cat Aao-
dikea almep eiot péyrorac Tey KaTa& Thy
dpvylav mbdewr. Below § 15 (p. 577)
he says ’Amduea 5 ésriv eurdpiov péya
THs ldlws Aeyouévns “Actas Sevrepetor
Mera Thy "Edecov. The relative im-
portance of Apamea and Laodicea two
or three generations earlier than St
Paul may be inferred from the notices
in Cicero; but there is reason for
thinking that Laodicea afterwards grew
more rapidly than Apamea.

2 In Josephus 1. c. the words are 74
Kara THv Ppvylay cal Aviiav, the two
names being under the vinculum of
the one article: while immediately
afterwards Lydia is dropped and Phry-
gia alone named, méuwae twas... eis
Ppvyiav.

8 Cie. pro Flacc. 28 ‘ Sequitur auri
illa invidia Judaici...Quum aurum Ju-
dgorum nomine quotannis ex Italia et
ex omnibus provinciis Hierosolyma

ne ex Asia exportari liceret...multitu-
dinem Judxorum, flagrantem non-
numquam in concionibus, pro repub-
lica contemnere gravitatis summa
fuit...Apames manifesto comprehen-
sum ante pedes pretoris in foro ex-
pensum est auri pondo centum paullo
minus...Laodices viginti pondo paullo
amplius.’

Josephus (Antig. xiv. 7. 2), quoting
the words of Strabo, réuwas 5¢ McOpe-
ddarns els K® @daBe...7a tov "Iovdalwy
éxTaxoota Tdéd\avra, explains this enor-
mous sum as composed of the temple-
offerings of the Jews which they sent
to Cos for safety out of the way of
Mithridates. .

4 This calculation supposes (1) That
the half-skekel weighs 110 gr.; (2) That
the Roman pound is s050 gr.: (3)
That the relation of gold to silver was
at this time as 12:1. This last esti-
mate is possibly somewhat too high.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 21

the Roman officers succeeded in detecting and confiscating ;

and that therefore the whole Jewish population would pro-
bably be much larger than this partial estimate implies. The
amount seized at Apamea, the other great Phrygian centre,

was five times as large as this’. Somewhat later we have a Other
document purporting to be a decree of the Laodiceans, in which idan
they thank the Roman Consul for a measure granting to
Jews the liberty of observing their sabbaths and practising
other rites of their religion*; and though this decree is pro-
bably spurious, yet it serves equally well to show that at. this
time Laodicea. was regarded as an important centre of the
dispersion in Asia Minor. To the same effect may be quoted

the extravagant hyperbole in the Talmud, that when on a cer-

tain occasion an insurrection of the Jews broke out in Casarea

the metropolis of Cappadocia, which brought down upon their
heads the cruel vengeance of king Sapor and led to a mas-
sacre of -12,000, ‘the wall of Laodicea was cloven with the
sound of the harpstrings’ in the fatal and premature mer-
riment of the insurgents*®. This place was doubtless singled

1 The coinage of Apamea affords a
striking example of Judaic influence

at a later date. On coins struck at:

this place in the reigns of Severus,
Macrinus, and the elder Philip, an
ark is represented floating on the
waters. Within are a man and a@ wo-
man’: on the roof a bird is perched ;
while in the air another bird ap-
proaches bearing an olive-branch in
its claws. The ark bears the inscrip-
tion NWe. Outside are two standing
figures, a man and a woman (ap-
parently the same two who have been
represented. within the ark), with their
hands raised as in the attitude of
prayer. The connexion of the ark
of Noah with Apamea is explained by
& passage in one of the Sibylline
Oracles (i. 261 sq.), where the moun-
tain overhanging Apamea is identified
with Ararat, and the ark (x:8wrds) is

stated to have rested there. Whether
this Apamea obtained its distinctive
surname of Cibotus, the Ark or Chest,
from its physical features or from its
position as the centre of taxation and
finance for the district, or from some
other cause, it is difficult to say. In
any case this surname might naturally
suggest to those acquainted with the
Old Testament a connexion with the
deluge of Noah; but the idea would
not have been adopted in the coinage
of the place without the pressure of
strong Jewish influences. On these
coins see Eckhel Doctr. Num. Vet. 11.
p.. 132 sq., and the paper of Sir F.
Madden in the Numismatic Chronicle
N. 8. vr. p. 173 8q. (1866), where they
are figured.

2 Joseph. Ant, xiv. 10. 21.

3 Talm. Babl. Moéd Katon 26a, quot-
ed by Neubauer, La. Géographie..du

22

Special
attrac-
tions of
Hiera-
polis,

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

out, because it had a peculiar interest for the Jews, as one
of their chief settlements’. It will be remembered also, that

Phrygia is especially mentioned among those countries which
furnished their quota of worshippers at Jerusalem, and were

thus represented at the baptism of the Christian Church on
the great day of Pentecost’.

Mention has already been made of the traffic in dyed wools,
which formed the staple of commerce in the valley of the
Lycus*. It may be inferred from other notices that this branch
of trade had a peculiar attraction for the Jews*. If so, their
commercial instincts would constantly bring fresh recruits to a
colony which was already very considerable. But the neighbour-
hood held out other inducements besides this. Hierapolis, the
gay watering place, the pleasant resort of idlers, had charms
for them, as well as Laodicea the busy commercial city. At
least such was the complaint of stricter patriots at home.
‘The wines and the baths of Phrygia,’ writes a Talmudist bit-

terly, ‘have separated the ten tribes from Israel >’

Talmud jp. 319, though he seems to
have misunderstood the expression
quoted in the text, of which he gives
the sense, ‘Cette ville tremblait au
bruit des flaches qu’on avait tirées.’

It is probably this same Lacdicea
which is meant in another Talmudical
passage, Talm. Babl. Baba Metziah
84 a (also quoted by Neubauer, p. 311),
in which Elijah appearing to R. Ish-
mael ben R. Jose, says ‘Thy father
fled to Asia; flee thou to Laodicea,’
where Asia is supposed to mean
Sardis,

1 An inscription found at Rome in
the Jewish cemetery at the Porta Por-
tuensis (Boeckh Corp. Inser. 9916)
runs thus; €NOA . KITE . AMMIA .
[elioyAea . ato . AadiKiac. KT.
le. @vOa xetroe "Auula "Iovdala dard
Aaodixelas. Probably Laodicea on the
Lycus is meant. Perhaps also we
may refer another inscription (6478),
which mentions one Trypho from Lao-

dicea on the Lycus, to a Jewish
source,

2 Acts ii. 10.

3 See p. 4.

* Acts xvi. 14. Is there an allusion
to this branch of trade in the message
to the Church of Laodicea, Rev. iii. 17
ovK oldas drt od ef 6....yuuvds’ oupBov-
Aevw cor dyopdoa... iudria NevKa wa
weptBady, k.T.A.? The only other of the
seven messages, which contains an
allusion to the white garments, is ad-
dressed to the Church of Sardis, where
again there might be a reference to the
Bdpyua Lapdiiavnxdv (Arist. Pax 1174,
Acharn, 112) and the gowikides Dapdua-
vicat (Plato Com. in Athen. 11. p. 48 E)
of the comic poets.

> Talm. Babl. Sabbath 147 b, quoted
by Neubauer La Géographie du Talmud
p. 317: see Wiesner Schol. zum Babyl.
alm. p. 259 sq., and p. 207 sq. On
the word translated ‘baths,’ see Rapo-
port’s Erech Millin p. 113, col. 1.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 23

There is no ground for supposing that, when St Paul wrote St Paul
his Epistle to the Colossians, he had ever visited the church ers ge
in which he evinces so deep an interest. Whether we ex- es 7
amine the narrative in the Acts, or whether we gather up wrote.
the notices in the epistle itself, we find no hint that he had
ever been in this neighbourhood; but on the contrary some
expressions indirectly exclude the supposition of a visit to the
district.

It is true that St Luke more than once mentions Phrygia What is
as lying on St Paul’s route or as witnessing his labours. Pheveioe
But Phrygia was a vague and comprehensive term; nor can St Luke?
we assume that the valley of the Lycus was intended, unless
the direction of his route or the context of the narrative dis-
tinctly points to this south-western corner of Phrygia. In
neither of the two passages, where St Paul is stated to have
travelled through Phrygia, is this the case.

1. On his second missionary journey, after he has revisited 1.StPaul’s
and confirmed the churches of Pisidia and Lycaonia founded Medals
on his first visit, he passes through ‘the Phrygian and Galatian ait seen
country’. I have pointed out elsewhere that this expression cer INE
must be used to denote the region which might be called in- me
differently Phrygia or Galatia—the land which had originally
belonged to the Phrygians and had afterwards been colonised
by the Gauls; or the parts of either country which lay in the
immediate neighbourhood of this debatable ground* This
region lies considerably north and east of the valley of the
Lycus. Assuming that the last of the Lycaonian and Pisidian
towns at which St Paul halted was Antioch, he would not
on any probable supposition approach nearer to Colosse than
Apamea Cibotus on his way to ‘the Phrygian and Galatian

country,’ nor indeed need he have gone nearly so far west-

1 Acts xvi. 6 rhv Ppvylay kal Tada- iii. 1 rhs “Irovpalas nal Tpaxwvtridos
Tikhv xwpay, the correct reading. For xdpas, Acts xiii. 14’Avrioxecay rHv Teoe-
this use of @pvylay as an adjective diay (the correct reading).
comp. Marki. 5 rica % Iovdala xdpa, § * See Galatians, p. 18 sq., 22.

Joh: iii. 22 els thy "Iovdalay jv, Luke

24

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

ward as this. And again on his departure from this region
he journeys by Mysia to Troas, leaving ‘Asia’ on his left hand
and Bithynia on his right. Thus the notices of his route con-
spire to show that his path on this occasion lay far away from
the valley of the Lycus.

2. Hisvisit. 2. But if he was not brought into the neighbourhood

on his
third mis-
sionary
journey.

of Colosse on his second missionary journey, it is equally
improbable that he visited it on his third. So far as regards
Asia Minor, he seems to have confined himself to revisiting
the churches already founded ; the new ground which he broke
was in Macedonia and Greece. ‘Thus when we are told that
during this third journey St Paul after leaving Antioch ‘ passed
in order through the Galatian country and Phrygia, confirm-
ing all the disciples’’ we can hardly doubt that ‘the Galatian
country and Phrygia’ in this latter passage denotes essentially
the same region as ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’ in
the former. The slight change of expression is explained by
the altered direction of his route.. In the first instance his
course, as determined by its extreme limits—Antioch in Pisidia
its starting-point, and Alexandria Troas its termination—
would be northward for the first part of the way, and thus
would lie on the border land of Phrygia and Galatia; whereas
on this second occasion, when he was travelling from Antioch
in Syria to Ephesus, its direction would be generally from
east to west, and the more strictly Galatian district would
be traversed before the Phrygian. If we suppose him to leave
Galatia at Pessinus on its western border, he would pass
along the great highway—formerly a Persian and at this
time a Roman road—by Synnada and Sardis to Ephesus,
traversing the heart of Phrygia, but following the valleys of
the Hermus and Cayster, and separated from the Meander
and Lycus by the high mountain ranges which bound these
latter to the north ®,

1 Acts xviii. 23. St Paul and St Luke is not the country
2M. Renan (Saint Paul pp. 51 8q., properly so called, but that they are
126, 313) maintains that the Galatia of speaking of the Churches of Pisidian

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS., 25.

Thus St Luke’s narrative seems to exclude any visit of The infer-
ence from

the Apostle to the Churches of the Lycus before his first

Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe,
which lay within the Roman province of
Galatia. This interpretation of Gala-
tia necessarily affects his view of St
Paul’s routes (pp. 126 s8q., 331 8q.); and
he supposes the Apostle on his third
missionary journey to have passed
through the valley of the Lycus, with-
out however remaining to preach the
Gospel there (pp. 331 8q., 356 8q., 362).
As Antioch in Pisidia would on this
hypothesis be the farthest church in
‘Galatia and Phrygia’ which St Paul
visited, his direct route from that city
to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1)
would naturally lie by this valley. I
have already (Galatians pp. 18 sq., 22)
stated the serious objections to which
this interpretation of ‘Galatia’ is open,
and (if I mistake not) have answered
most of M. Renan’s arguments by an-
ticipation. But, as this interpretation
nearly affects an important point in
the history of St Paul's dealings with
the Colossians, it is necessary to sub-
ject it to a closer examination.

Without stopping to enquire whe-
ther this view is reconcilable with St
Paul’s assertion (Col. ii. 1) that these
churches in the Lycus valley ‘had not
seen his face in the flesh,’ it will ap-
pear (I think) that M. Renan’s argu-
ments are in some cases untenable and
in others may be turned against him-
self. The three heads under which
they may be conveniently considered
are: (i) The use of the name ‘ Galatia’ ;
(ii) The itinerary of St Paul’s travels;
(iii) The historical notices in the Epis-
tle to the Galatians.

(i) On the first point, M. Renan
states that St Paul was in the habit of
using the official name for each dis-
trict, and therefore called the country
which extends from Antioch in Pisidia

to Derbe ‘Galatia,’ supporting this
view by the Apostle’s use of Asia,
Macedonia, and Achaia (p. 51). The
answer is that the names of these
elder provinces had very generally su-
perseded the local names, but this was
not the case with the other districts of
Asia Minor where the provinces had ~
been formed at a comparatively late
date. The usage of St Luke is a
good criterion. He also speaks of
Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia; but at

the same time his narrative abounds

in historical or ethnographical names
which have no official import; e.g.
Lycaonia, Mysia, Pamphylia, Pisidia,
Phrygia. Where we have no evidence,
it is reasonable to assume that St
Paul’s usage was conformable to St
Luke’s. And again, if we consider
St Luke’s account alone, how insu-
perable are the difficulties which this
view of Galatia creates. The part of
Asia Minor, with which we are imme-
diately concerned, was comprised offi-
cially in the provinces of Asia and
Galatia. On M. Renan’s showing, St
Luke, after calling Antioch a city of
Pisidia (xiii, 14) and Lystra and Derbe
cities of Lycaonia (xiv. 6), treats all
the three, together with the interme-
diate Iconium, as belonging to Galatia
(xvi. 6, xviii. 23). He explains the in-
consistency by saying that in the former
case the narrative proceeds in detail,
in the latter in masses. But if so,
why should he combine a historical
and ethnological name Phrygia with
an official name Galatia in the same
breath, when the two are different in
kind and cannot be mutually exclusive?
‘Galatia and Asia,’ would be intelligi-
ble on this supposition, but not ‘Ga-
latia and Phrygia.’ Moreover the very
form of the expression in xvi. 6, ‘the

26

St Luke’s
narrative

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

Roman captivity. And this inference is confirmed by St Paul’s

own language to the Colossians.

Phrygian and Galatian country’ (ac-
cording to the correct reading which
M. Renan neglects), appears in its stu-
died vagueness to exclude the idea that
St Luke means the province of Gala-
tia, whose boundaries were precisely
marked. And even granting that the
Christian communities of Lycaonia
and Pisidia could by a straining of
language be called Churches of Gala-
tia, is it possible that St Paul would
address them personally as ‘ye fool-
ish Galatians’ (Gal. iii. 1)? Such lan-
guage would be no more appropriate
than if a modern preacher in a fami-
liar address were to appeal to the
Poles of Warsaw as ‘ye Russians,’ or
the Hungarians of Pesth as ‘ye Aus-
trians,’ or the Irish of Cork as ‘ye
Englishmen.’

(ii) In the itinerary of St Paul
several points require consideration.
(a) M. Renan lays stress on the fact
that in Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23, the order
in which the names of Phrygia and
Galatia occur is inverted. I seem to
myself to have explained this satisfac-
torily in the text. He appears to be
unaware of the correct reading in xvi,
6, thv Ppvyiav cat Tadarichy Xwpav
(see Galatians p. 22), though it has an
important bearing on St Paul’s proba-
ble route, (b) He states that Troas
was St Paul’s aim (‘l’objectif de Saint
Paul’) in the one case (xvi. 6), and
Ephesus in the other (xviii. 23): con-
sequently he argues that Galatia, pro-
perly so called, is inconceivable, as
there was no reason why he should
have made ‘this strange detour to-
wards the north.’ The answer is that
Troas was not his ‘objectif’ in the
first instance, nor Ephesus in the
second. On the first occasion St Luke
states that the Apostle set out on his

journey with quite different intentions,
but that after he had got well to the
north of Asia Minor he was driven by a
series of divine intimations to proceed
first to Troas and thence to cross over
into Europe (see Philippians p. 48).
This narrative seems to me to imply
that he starts for his further travels
from some point in the western part
of Galatia proper. When he comes to
the borders of Mysia, he designs bear-
ing to the left and preaching in Asia;
but a divine voice forbids him. He
then purposes diverging to the right
and delivering his message in Bithynia;
but the same unseen power checks him
again, Thus he is driven forward, and
passes by Mysia to the coast at Troas
(Acts xvi. 6—8). Here all is plain.
But if we suppose him to start, not from
some town in Galatia proper such as
Pessinus, but from Antioch in Pisidia,
why should Bithynia, which would be
far out of the way, be mentioned at
all? On the second occasion, St Paul’s
primary object is to revisit the Gala-
tian Churches which he had planted
on the former journey (xviii. 23), and
it is not till after he has fulfilled this
intention that he goes to Ephesus.
(c) M. Renan also calls attention to
the difficulty of traversing ‘the central
steppe’ of Asia Minor. ‘ There was
probably,’ he says, ‘at this epoch no
route from Iconium to Ancyra,’ and in
justification of this statement he re-
fers to Perrot, de Gal. Rom. prov. p.
102,103. Even so, there were regular
roads from either Iconium or Antioch
to Pessinus; and this route would serve
equally well. Moreoverthe Apostle, who
was accustomed to ‘perils of rivers,
perils of robbers, perils in the wilder-
ness’ (2 Cor. xi. 26), and who preferred
walking from Troas to Assos (Acts xx.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 27

He represents his knowledge of their continued progress, Pg out
and even of their first initiation, in the truths of the Gospel, a own
as derived from the report of others. He describes himself onenrn

13) while his companions sailed, would
not be deterred by any rough or un-
frequented paths. But the facts ad-
duced by Perrot do not lend them-
selves to any such inference, nor does
he himself draw it. He cites an in-
scription of the year 4.p. 82 which
speaks of A. Cwsennius Gallus, the
legate of Domitian, as a great road-
maker throughout the Eastern pro-
vinces of Asia Minor, and he suggests
that the existing remains of a road be-
~ tween Ancyra and Iconium may be
part of this governor’s work. Even if
the suggestion be adopted, it is highly
improbable that no road should have
existed previously, when we consider
the comparative facility of construct-
ing a way along this line of country
(Perrot p. 103) and the importance of
such a direct route. (d) ‘In the con-
ception of the author of the Acts,’
writes M. Renan, ‘the two journeys
‘across Asia Minor are journeys of con-
firmation and not of conversion (Acts
XV. 36, 41, xvi. 5, 6, xviii. 23).’ This
statement seems to me to be only
partially true. In both cases St Paul
begins his tour by confirming churches
already established, but in both he
advances beyond this and breaks new
ground. In the former he starts with
the existing churches of Lycaonia and
Pisidia and extends his labours to
Galatia: in the latter he starts with
the then existing churches of Galatia,
and carries the Gospel into Macedonia
and Achaia.. This, so far as I can dis-
cover, was his general rule.

(iii) The notices in the Galatian
Epistles, which appear to M. Renan to
favour his view, are these: (a) St Paul
appears to have ‘had intimate rela-
tions with the Galatian Church, at

least as intimate as with the Corinth-
ians and Thessalonians,’ whereas St
Luke disposes of the Apostle’s preaching
in Galatia very summarily, unless the
communities of Lycaonia and Pisidia
be included. But the Galatian Epis-
tle by no means evinces the same
close and varied personal relations
which we find in the letters to these
other churches, more especially to the
Corinthians. And again; St Luke’s
history is more or less fragmentary.
Whole years are sometimes dismissed
in a few verses. The stay in Arabia
which made so deep an impression on
St Paul himself is not even mention-
ed: the three months’ sojourn in
Greece, though doubtless full of stir-
ring events, only occupies a single
verse in the narrative (Acts xx. 3).
St Luke appears to have joined St
Paul after his visit to Galatia (xvi. 10);
and there is no reason why he should
have dwelt on incidents with which he
had no direct acquaintance. (b) M.
Renan sees in the presence of emis-
saries from Jerusalem in the Galatian
Churches an indication that Galatia
proper is not meant, ‘It is improba-
ble that they would have made such a
journey.’ But why so? There were
important Jewish settlements in Gala-
tia proper (Galatians p. 9 8q.); there
was a good road through Syria and
Cilicia to Ancyra (Itin. Anton. p. 205 sq.,
Itin. Hierosol. p. 575 sq. ed. Wessel.) ;
and if we find such emissaries as far
away from Jerusalem as Corinth (2 Cor.
xi. 13, etc.), there is at least no impro-
bability that they should have reached
Galatia. (c) Lastly; M. Renan thinks
that the mention of Barnabas (Gal. ii.
I, 9, 13) implies that he was person-
ally known to the churches addressed,

28

Silence of
St Paul.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS:

as hearing of their faith in Christ and their love to the saints’,
He recals the day when he first heard of their Christian pro-
fession and zeal*, Though opportunities occur again and again
where he would naturally have referred to his direct personal
relations with them, if he had been their evangelist, he abstains
from any such reference. He speaks of their being instructed
in the Gospel, of his own preaching the Gospel, several times
in the course of the letter, but he never places the two ‘in
any direct connexion, though the one reference stands in the
immediate neighbourhood of the other*. Moreover, if he had
actually visited Colossz, it must appear strange that he should
not once allude to any incident occurring during his sojourn
there, for this epistle would then be the single exception to
his ordinary practice. And lastly; in one passage at least, if
interpreted in its natural sense, he declares that the Colossians
were personally unknown to him: ‘I would have you know,
he writes, ‘how great a conflict I have for you and them that
are in Laodicea and as many as have not seen my face in the

flesh *””

and therefore points to Lycaonia and
Pisidia. But are we to infer on the
same grounds that he was personally
known to the Corinthians (1 Cor. ix. 6),
and to the Colossians (Col. iv. 10)? In
fact the name of Barnabas, as a fa-
mous Apostle and an older disciple even
than St Paul himself, would not fail to
be well known in all the churches.
On the other hand one or two notices
in the Galatian Epistle present serious
obstacles to M. Renan’s view. What
are we to say for instance to St Paul’s
statement, that he preached the Gos-
pel in Galatia 6: doGéveray rijs capkos
(iv. 13), i.e. because he was detained by
sickness (see Galatians pp. 23 8q.,172),
whereas his journey to Lycaonia and
Pisidia is distinctly planned with a
view to missionary work? Why again
is there no mention of Timothy, who
was much in St Paul’s company about

this time, and who on this showing was
himself a Galatian? Some mention
would seem to be especially suggested
where St Paul is justifying his conduct
respecting the attempt to compel Titus
to be circumcised.

A Ooleaionds

21.9 dtd TodTo Kat quets, dd’ ys hué-
pas jKovcapmev, ov mavducba K.T.X. This
corresponds to ver. 6 ka@as kal év byulr,
ap’ Fs huépas jKovoate kal éréyvwre
Tiv xdpiw Tod Oecd é adyOeig. The
day when they first heard the preach-
ing of the Gospel, and the day when
he first heard the tidings of this fact,
are set against each other.

3 e.g. 1. 5—8, 21—23, 25, 28, 29.
a2, 18,00,

4 ii, 1 O0&w ydp duds eldévar prlKov
ayava éxw vrép tuav kat Trav év Aaods-
kelg Kal Boor ovx éwpaxay TO mpdowmor
Hou év capkl, wa mapaxAnOdow ai Kap-

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 29

But, if he was not directly their evangelist, yet to him Sree

they were indirectly indebted for their knowledge of the truth. evangelist
Epaphras had been his delegate to them, his representative re
in Christ. By Epaphras they had been converted to the Gos-

pel. This is the evident meaning of a passage in the open-

ing of the epistle, which has been much obscured by misreading

and mistranslation, and which may be paraphrased thus: ‘The
Gospel, which has spread and borne fruit throughout the rest

of the world, has been equally successful among yourselves,

This fertile growth has been manifested in you from the first

day when the message of God’s grace was preached to you,

and accepted by you—preached not as now with adulterations

by these false teachers, but in its genuine simplicity by Epa-
phras our beloved fellowservant ; he has been a faithful minister

of Christ and a faithful representative of us, and from him we

have received tidings of your love in the Spirit’,

diac avrav, cupBiBacbevres x.7.X. The
question of interpretation is whether
the people of Colosse and Laodicea,
belong to the same category with the
dco, or not. The latter view is taken
by one or two ancient interpreters
(e.g. Theodoret in his introduction to
the epistle), and has been adopted by
several modern critics. Yet it is op-
posed alike to grammatical and logical
considerations. : (1) The grammatical
form is unfayourable; for the preposi-
tion Jrép is not repeated, so that all
the persons mentioned are included
under a vinculum. (2) No adequate
sense can be extracted from the pas-
sage, so interpreted. For in this case
what is the drift of the enumeration?
If intended to be exhaustive, it does
not fulfil the purpose; for nothing is
said of others whom he had seen be-
sides the Colossians: and Laodiceans.
If not intended to be exhaustive, it is
meaningless; for there is no reason
why the Colossians and Laodiceans

especially should be set off against
those whom he had not seen, or in-
deed why in this connexion those whom
he had not seen should be mentioned
at all. The whole context shows that
the Apostle is dwelling on his spiritual
communion with and interest in those.
with whom he has had no personal com-
munications. St Jerome (Ep. cxxx. ad
Demetr. § 2) has rightly caught the
spirit of the passage; ‘Ignoti ad ig-
notam scribimus, dumtaxat juxta fa-
ciem corporalem. Alioquin interior
homo pulcre sibi cognitus est illa
notitia qua et Paulus apostolus Co-
lossenses multosque credentium no-
verat quos ante non viderat.’ For
parallels to this use of kat dco, see
the note on the passage.

14.6 év wavtl r@ Kéoum éoriv Kap-
mopopovuevoy Kal avéavouevorv, Ka0ws kat
év viv, ad’ js huepas hxovoare Kat
éréyvwre Thy xdpw Tod Oeod év ddyOela,
Kadws éuddere dro "Eradpa& rob ayarn-
To0 guvdotd\ov Huddy, os éorw motos

30

St Paul’s
residence

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

How or when the conversion of the Colossians took place,

atHphesus We have no direct information. Yet it can hardly be wrong

instru-
mental in
their con-
version.

A.D.
54—57-

to connect the event with St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephesus.
Here he remained preaching for three whole years. It is
possible indeed that during this period he paid short visits to
other neighbouring cities of Asia: but if so, the notices in the
Acts oblige us to suppose these interruptions to his residence
in Ephesus to have been slight and infrequent’, Yet, though
the Apostle himself was stationary in the capital, the Apostle’s
influence and teaching spread far beyond the limits of the city
and its immediate neighbourhood. It was hardly an exag-
geration when Demetrius declared that ‘almost throughout
all Asia this Paul had persuaded and turned away much
people*’ The sacred historian himself uses equally strong
language in describing the effects of the Apostle’s preaching ;
‘All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord,
both Jews and Greeks*®’ In accordance with these notices
the Apostle himself in an epistle written during this sojourn
sends salutations to Corinth, not from the Church of Ephesus
specially, as might have been anticipated, but from the

Urép hua SidKovos Too Xpiorot, 6 xal
Syrwoas Huiv Thy Yuav aydrny év wvev-
part.

The various readings which obscure
the meaning are these. (i) The re-
ceived text for adds éuddere has caus
kat éud@ere. With this reading the
passage suggests that the instructions
of Epaphras were superadded to, and
so distinct from, the original evangeli-
zation of Colosse ; whereas the correct
text identifies them. (ii) For ¥rép judy
the received reading is vrép vmor.
Thus the fact that St Paul did not
preach at Colosse in person, but
through his representative, is obliterat-
ed. In both cases the authority for
the readings which I have adopted
against the received text is over-
whelming.

The obscurity of rendering is in

Kabws [kal] éud@ere dro Exadgpa, trans-
lated in our English Version by the
ambiguous expression, ‘as ye also
learned of Epaphras.’ The true force
of the words is, ‘ according as ye were
taught by Epaphras,’ being an ex-
planation of év d\nOelg. See the notes
on the passage.

1 See especially xx. 18 ‘Ye know,
from the first day when I set foot on
Asia, how I was with you all the time,’
and ver. 31 ‘For three years night and
day I ceqsed not warning every one
with tears.’ As it seems necessary to
allow for a brief visit to Corinth (2 Cor.
xli, 14, Xili. 1) during this period, other
interruptions of long duration should
not be postulated,

2 Acts xix. 26.

8 Acts xix. 10,

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 31

“Churches of Asia’ generally’, St Luke, it should be ob-
served, ascribes this dissemination of the Gospel, not to jour-
neys undertaken by the Apostle, but to his preaching at Ephe-
sus itself’, hither, as to the metropolis of Western Asia,
would flock crowds from all the towns and villages far and near.
Thence they would carry away, each to his own neighbour-
hood, the spiritual treasure which they had so unexpectedly
found. |

Among the places thus represented at the Asiatic metro- Close alli-
polis would doubtless be the cities lying in the valley of the penis he
Lycus. The bonds of amity between these places and Ephesus ae
appear to have been unusually strong. The Concord of the
Laodiceans and Ephesians, the Concord of the Hierapolitans
and Ephesians, are repeatedly commemorated on medals struck
Thus the Colossians, Epaphras and Phile- The work
mon, the latter with his household‘, and perhaps also the aa
Laodicean Nymphas®, would fall in with the Apostle of the S7™P2*
Gentiles and hear from his lips the first tidings of a heavenly
life.
But, whatever service may have been rendered by Philemon but especi-
at Colosse, or by Nymphas at Laodicea, it was to Epaphras mh
especially that all the three cities were indebted for their
knowledge of the Gospel. Though he was a Colossian by birth,
the fervency of his prayers and the energy of his love are re-
presented as extending equally to Laodicea and Hierapolis®
It is obvious that he looked upon himself as responsible for
the spiritual well-being of all alike,

for the purpose’.

. 1 1 Cor. xvi. 19 domdgovras vuas al
€xxAnolac tis "Actas. In accordance
with these facts it should benoticed that
St Paul himself alluding to this period
speaks of ‘Asia,’ as the scene of his
ministry (2 Cor. i. 8, Rom. xvi. 5).

? Acts xix. 10 ‘disputing daily in
the School of Tyrannus ; and this con-
tinued for two years, so that all they
which dwelt in Asia, ete,’

= AAOAIKEDN . ECPECION . OMO-
NOId, Eckhel 11. p. 165, Mionnet 1y.

P- 324, 325) 33%, 332, Suppl. vi. p,
583, 586, 589; IEPATIOAEITOON . EE-
CIWN . OMONOIA, Eckhel 111, p. 155,
157, Mionnet Iv. p. 299, 300, 307,
Suppl. vil. p» 569, 57%, 572) 5749 575+
See Steiger Kolosser p. 50, and comp.
Krause Civitat. Neocor. § 20.

4 Philem. 1, 2, 19.

5 Gol. iv. 15. On the question
whether the name is Nymphas or
Nympha, see the notes there.

6 iv. 12, 13+

32 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS:

St Paul We pass over a period of five or six years. St Paul’s
eet first captivity in Rome is now drawing to a close. During
igs this interval he has not once visited the valley of the Lycus.
He has, it is true, skirted the coast and called at Miletus,
which lies near the mouth of the Meander; but, though the
elders of Ephesus were summoned to meet him there’, no

mention is made of any representatives from these more dis-

tant towns.
His I have elsewhere described the Apostle’s circumstances
imprison- : . : :
ment a Curing his residence in Rome, so far as they are known to

Home. us’ It is sufficient to say here, that though he is still a
prisoner, friends new and old minister freely to his wants.
Meanwhile the alienation of the Judaic Christians is complete.
Three only, remaining faithful to him, are commemorated as
honourable exceptions in the general desertion’®.

Colosse We have seen that Colossze was an unimportant place, and
prough* , that it had no direct personal claims on the Apostle. We

cet might therefore feel surprise that, thus doubly disqualified,

dents. it should nevertheless attract his special attention at a critical

| moment, when severe personal trials were superadded to ‘the
care of all the churches. But two circumstances, the one
affecting his public duties, the other private and personal,
happening at this time, conspired to bring Colosse prominently
before his notice.

1. The 1. He had received a visit from EpAPHRAS. The dangerous

cea condition of the Colessian and neighbouring churches had
filled the mind of their evangelist with alarm. A strange
form of heresy had broken out in these brotherhoods—a com-
bination of Judaic formalism with Oriental mystic specula-
tion—and was already spreading rapidly. His distress was
extreme. He gratefully acknowledged and reported their faith
in Christ and their works of love*. But this only quickened

his anxiety. He had ‘much toil for them’; he was ‘ever

1 Acts xx. 16, 17. 3 Col. iv. 10, 11. See Philippians
2 See Philippians p. 6 sq._ p. 17 8q. ie a eet: 8 |

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 33

wrestling in his prayers on their behalf” that they might
stand fast and not abandon the simplicity of their earlier faith *.
He came to Rome, we may suppose, for the express purpose
of laying this state of things before the Apostle and seeking his
counsel and assistance.

2. But at the time when Epaphras paid this visit, St Paul, owxsr.
was also in communication with another Colossian, who had aia,
visited Rome under very different circumstances. ONESIMUS, Rome.
the runaway slave, had sought the metropolis, the common
sink of all nations’, probably as a convenient hiding place,
where he might escape detection among its crowds and make
a livelihood as best he could. Here, perhaps accidentally,
perhaps through the intervention of Epaphras, he fell in with
his master’s old friend. The Apostle interested himself in his
case, instructed him in the Gospel, and transformed him from a
good-for-nothing slave * into a ‘faithful and beloved brother *.

This combination of circumstances called the Apostle’s at- m,, iio:
tention to the Churches of the Lycus, and more especially to pac
Colosse. His letters, which had been found ‘weighty and three let-
powerful’ in other cases, might not be unavailing now; and nboualy, :
in this hope he took up his pen. Three epistles were written
and: despatched at the same time to this district.

I. He addresses a special letter to the COLOSSIANS, written 1. The
in the joint names of himself and Timothy, warning them st sig
against the errors of the false teachers. He gratefully ac- iyo
knowledges the report which he has received of their love
and zeal®. He assures them of the conflict which agitates
him on their behalf*. He warns them to be on their guard
against the delusive logic of enticing words, against the vain
deceit of a false philosophy’. The purity of their Christianity The theo-

logical and
is endangered by two errors, recommended to them by their ‘he prec:

heretical leaders—the one theological, the other practical— Po waitin ot
sians,
4 iv. 12, 13. 4 Col. iv. 9; comp. Philem. 16.
2 Tac, Ann. xv. 44. 5 i, 3—9, 21 8q,
‘ 8 Philem, 11 rév roré co hd 6 ii. 1 sq.
K.TA. Tha a SE

COL. 3

34 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

but both alike springing from the same source, the conception
of matter as the origin and abode of evil. Thus, regarding
God and matter as directly antagonistic and therefore apart
from and having no communication with each other, they sought
to explain the creation and government of the world by inter-
posing a series of intermediate beings, emanations or angels,
to whom accordingly they offered worship. At the same time,
since they held that evil resided, not in the rebellious spirit of
man, but in the innate properties of matter, they sought to
overcome it by a rigid ascetic discipline, which failed after all
The pro. to touch the springs of action. As both errors flowed from the
per cee" same source, they must be corrected by the application of the
both lies game remedy, the Christ of the Gospel. In the Person of Christ,
in the ; : :
Christ of the one mediator between heaven and earth, is the true solution
ane of the theological difficulty. Through the Life in Christ, the
purification of the heart through faith and love, is the effectual
triumph over moral evil’, St Paul therefore prescribes to
the Colossians the true teaching of the Gospel, as the best anti-
dote to the twofold danger which threatens at once their theo-
References logical creed and their moral principles; while at the same
ee time he enforces his lesson by the claims of personal affection,
appealing to the devotion of their evangelist Epaphras on
their behalf”. |
Of Epaphras himself we know nothing beyond the few but
significant notices which connect him with Colosse*. He did
not return to Colossse as the bearer of the letter, but remained

1 i, 1—20, ii. 9, iii. 4. The two note 4. The later tradition, which

threads are closely interwoven in St
Paul’s refutation, as these references
will show. The connexion of the two
errors, as arising from the same false
principle, will be considered more in
detail in the next chapter.

44,9, 10 5%

3 For the reasons why Epaphras
cannot be identified with Epaphrodi-
tus, who is mentioned in the Phi-
lippian letter, see Philippians p. 61,

makes him bishop of Colossex, is doubt-
less an inference from St Paul’s lan-
guage and has no independent value.
The further statement of the martyr-
ologies, that he suffered martyrdom
for his flock, can hardly be held to
deserve any higher credit. His day is
the 19th of July in the Western
Calendar. His body is said to lie in
the Church of 8. Maria Maggiore at
Rome.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. ag 35

behind with St Paul’. As St Paul in a contemporary epistle
designates him his fellow-prisoner’, it may be inferred that

his zeal and affection had involved ‘him in the Apostle’s cap-

tivity, and that his continuance in Rome was enforced. But
however this may be, the letter was placed in the hands of
Tychicus, a native of proconsular Asia, probably of Ephesus ®, Tychicus
who was entrusted with a wider mission at this time, and in its pause mt
discharge would be obliged to visit the valley of the Lycus* (ope.
At the same time he was accompanied by Onesimus, whom the
Colossians had only known hitherto as a worthless slave, but

who now returns to them with the stamp of the Apostle’s warm
approval. St Paul says very little about himself, because
Tychicus and Onesimus would be able by word of mouth to
communicate all information to the Colossians®, But he sends The salu.
one or two salutations which deserve a few words of explana- errs
tion. Epaphras of course greets his fellow-townsmen and
children in the faith. Other names are those of Aristarchus

the Thessalonian, who had been with the Apostle at Ephesus®

and may possibly have formed some personal connexion with

the Colossians at that time: Mark, against whom apparently

the Apostle fears that a prejudice may be entertained (perhaps

the fact of his earlier desertion, and of St Paui’s dissatisfaction

in consequence’, may have been widely known), and for whom
therefore he asks a favourable reception at his approaching

visit to Colossze, according to instructions which they had already
received; and Jesus the Just, of whose relations with the

1 Col. iv. 12.
- 2 Philem. 23 6 cuvaryyddwrbs pov.
The word may possibly have a meta-
phorical sense (see Philippians p. 11);
but the literal meaning is more proba-
ble. St Jerome on Philem, 23 (vir. p.
762) gives the story that St Paul’s
parents were natives of Giscala and,
when the Romans invaded and wasted
Juda, were banished thence with their
son to Tarsus. He adds that Epaphras
may have been St Panul’s fellow-

prisoner at this time, and have been
removed with his parents to Colossm.
It is not quite clear whether this
statement respecting Epaphras is part
of the tradition, or Jerome’s own con-
jecture appended to it.

3 Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iv. 12.

* See below, p. 37.

5 Col. iv. 7—9.

6 Acts xix. 29.

7 Acts xiii. 13, XV. 37—39.

3-—-2

36 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

Colossians we know nothing, and whose only claim to a men-
tion may have been his singular fidelity to the Apostle at a
critical juncture. Salutations moreover are added from Luke
and from Demas; and here again their close companionship
with the Apostle is, so far as we know, the sole cause of their
names appearing’.

Charge re- Lastly, the Laodiceans were closely connected with the

ae Colossians by local and spiritual ties. To the Church of Lao-
dicea therefore, and to the household of one Nymphas who
was a prominent member of it, he sends greeting. At the
same time he directs them to interchange letters with the
Laodiceans; for to Laodicea also he had written. And he
closes his salutations with a message to Archippus, a resident
either at Colosse or at Laodicea (for on this point we are left
to conjecture), who held some important office in the Church, .
and respecting whose zeal he seems to have entertained a
misgiving *. |

>. The 2. But, while providing for the spiritual welfare of the

Salter whole Colossian Church, he did not forget the temporal inter-
ests of its humblest member. Having attended to the soli-
citations of the evangelist Epaphras, he now addressed himself to
the troubles of the runaway slave Onesimus, The mission of
Tychicus to Colossze was a favourable opportunity of restoring
him to Philemon; for Tychicus, well known as the Apostle’s
friend and fellow-labourer, might throw the shield of his pro-
tection over him and avert the worst consequences of Phile-
mon’s anger. But, not content with this measure of precaution,
the Apostle himself writes to PHILEMON on the offender’s be-
half, recommending him as a changed man*, and claiming for-
giveness for him as a return due from Philemon to himself as to
his spiritual father *. :

The salutations in this letter are the same as those in

the Epistle to the Colossians with the exception of Jesus

1 Col. iy. 1o—14. * Philem. 11,10;
2 iv. I5—17. * ver. 19.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 37

Justus, whose name is omitted’. Towards the close St Paul
declares his hope of release and intention of visiting Colosse,
and asks Philemon to ‘ prepare a lodging’ for him *,

3. But at the same time with the two letters destined espe- 3. The
cially for Colosse, the Apostle despatched a third, which had peeling!
a wider scope. It has been already mentioned that Tychicus Which a

was charged with a mission to the Asiatic Churches. It has pent to
been noticed also that the Colossians were directed to procure emis
and read a letter in the possession of the Laodiceans. These

two facts are closely connected. The Apostle wrote at this

time a circular letter to the Asiatic Churches, which got

its ultimate designation from the metropolitan city and is
consequently known to us as the Epistle to the EpHEsrans®,

It was the immediate object of Tychicus’ journey to deliver
copies of this letter at all the principal centres of Christi-
anity in the district, and at the same time to communicate

by word of mouth the Apostle’s special messages to each‘,
Among these centres was Laodicea. Thus his mission brought

him into the immediate neighbourhood of Colosse. But he

was not charged to deliver another copy of the circular letter

at Colossz itself, for this Church would be regarded only as

a dependency of Laodicea; and besides he was the bearer of

a special letter from the Apostle to them. It was sufficient
therefore to provide that the Laodicean copy should be circu-

lated and read at Colossze,

Thus the three letters are closely related. Tychicus is the Personal
personal link of connexion between the Epistles to the Ephe- noua a
sians and to the Colossians; Onesimus between those to the parctoen |
Colossians and to Philemon.

For reasons given elsewhere’, it would appear that these
three letters were written and despatched towards the close of
the Apostle’s captivity, about the year 63. At some time not

1 VV. 23, 246 5 See Philippians p. 30 sq.; where
2 ver. 22. reasons are given for placing the
% See the introduction to the epis- Philippian Epistle at an. earlier, and
tle. the others at a later stage in the

4 Mphes. vi. 21, 22. Apostle’s captivity.

38

Earth-
quake in
the Lycus
Valley.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

very distant from this date, a great catastrophe overtook the
cities of the Lycus valley. An earthquake was no uncommon

occurrence in this region’.

But on this occasion the shock had

been unusually violent, and Laodicea, the flourishing and popu-

lous, was laid in ruins.

Tacitus, who is our earliest authority

for this fact, places it in the year 60 and is silent about the

neighbouring towns*.

1 See above, p. 3. Laodicea was
visited by the following earthquakes
in the ages preceding and subsequent
to the Christian era.

(1) Before about B.c. 125, Orac.
Sibyll. iii. 471, if the date now com-
monly assigned to this Sibylline Oracle
be correct, and if the passage is to be
regarded as a prophecy after the event.
In iii. 347 Hierapolis is also mentioned
as suffering in the same way; but it
may be questioned whether the Phry-
gian city is meant.

(2) About B.c. 12, Strabo xii. 8,p. 579,
Dion Cass, liv.30. Strabo names only
Laodicea and Tralles, but Dion Cas-
sius says 4 ’Acla 7d é0vos émixouplas
Tivos dia Tercmovs maddioTa EdetTO.

(3) aD. 60 according to Tacitus
(Ann. Xiv. 27); A.D. 64 or 65 according
to Eusebius (Chron. s.a.), who includes
also Hierapolis and Colosse. ‘To this
earthquake allusion is made in a Sibyl-
line Oracle written not many years
after the event; Orac. Sibyll, iv. 107
(see also v. 289, Vil. 23).

(4) Between a.p. 222 and a.p. 235,
in the reign of Alexander Severus, as
we learn from another Sibylline Oracle
(xii. 280). On this occasion Hierapolis
also suffered.

This list will probably be found not
to have exhausted all these catastro-
phes on record,

The following earthquakes also are
mentioned as happening in the neigh-
bouring towns or in the district gene-
rally: at an uncertain date, Carura
(Strabo xii. 8, p.. 578); A.D. 17 the

Eusebius however makes it subse-

twelve cities, Sardis being the worst
sufferer (Tac. Ann, ii. 7, Plin. N. H.
il. 86, Dion Cass. lvii. 17, Strabo xii,
8, Pp. 57y)3 A.D. 23 Cibyra (Tac. Ann.
iv. 13); A.D. 53 Apamea (Tac. Ann.
xii. 58): about a.p. 138—142, under
Antoninus Pius, ‘Rhodiorum et Asie
oppida’ (Capitol. Anton. Pius 9, Aristid.
Or. xliv); A.D. 151 Or 152, under the
same emperor, Mitylene and other
places (Aristid. Or. xxv); A.D. 180,
under M. Aurelius, Smyrna (Chron.
Pasch, 1. p. 489, ed. Dind., Aristid. Or.
XX, xxi, xli; see Clinton Fast. Rom. 1.
p- 176 sq., Hertzberg Griechenland ete.
II. pp. 371, 410, and esp. Waddington
Mémoire sur la Chronologie du Rhéteur
Ailius Aristide pp. 242 8q., 267, in
Mém. de VAcad. des Inscr. xxv1, 1867,
who has corrected the dates); a.D. 262,
under Gallienus 11 (Trebell. Gallien. 5
‘Malum tristius in Asie urbibus fuit
...hiatus terre plurimis in locis fue-
runt, cum aqua salsa in fossis appa-
reret,’ ib. 6 ‘vastatam Asiam...elemen-
torum concussionibus’). Strabo says
(p. 579) that Philadelphia is more or
less shaken daily (xa? juépav), and
that Apamea has suffered from nu-
merous earthquakes.

2 Tac. Ann. xiv. 27 ‘Hodem anno
ex inlustribus Asie urbibus Laodicea,
tremore terre prolapsa, nullo a nobis
remedio propriis opibus revaluit.’ The
year is given ‘Nerone iv, Corn. Cosso
consulibus’ (xiv. 20). Two different
writers, in Smith’s Dictionary of Geo-
graphy and Smith’s Dictionary of the
Bible, s.v. Laodicea, place the destruc-

39
quent to the burning of Rome (A.D. 64), and mentions Hiera- Tis proba-
polis and Colossee also as involved in the disaster*; while later :
writers, adopting the date of Eusebius and including the three

cities with him, represent it as one of a series of divine judg-

ments on the heathen world for the persecution of the Chris-

tians which followed on the fire*, Having no direct knowledge

of the source from which Eusebius derived his information, we

should naturally be disposed to accept the authority of Tacitus

for the date, as more trustworthy. But, as indications occur
elsewhere that Eusebius followed unusually good authorities in
recording these earthquakes *, it is far from improbable that he

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

tion of Laodicea in the reign of Tibe-
rius, confusing this earthquake with
an earlier one (Ann. ii. 47). By this
earlier earthquake ‘duodecim celebres
Asie urbes conlapse,’ but their names
are given, and not one is situated in
the valley of the Lycus.

1 Huseb. Chron. Ol. 210 (a. p. 154
sq., ed. Schdne) ‘In Asia tres urbes
terre motu conciderunt Laodicea Hie-
rapolis Colosse.? The Armenian ver-
sion and Jerome agree in placing it
the next event in order after the fire
at Rome (4.D. 64), though there is a
difference of a year in the two texts.
If the Sibylline Oracle, v. 317, refers to
this earthquake, as seems probable,
we have independent testimony that
Hierapolis was involved in the cata-
strophe; comp. ib. v. 289.

2 This is evidently the idea of Oro-
sius, vii. 7.

3 I draw this inference from his
account of the earthquake in the reign
of Tiberius. Tacitus (Ann. ii. 47) states
that twelve cities were ruined in one
night, and records their names. Pliny
also, who mentions this earthquake as
‘the greatest within the memory of
man’ (N. H. ii. 86), gives the same
number. Eusebius however, Chron.
Ol. 198 (11. p. 146 sq., ed. Schéne),
names thirteen cities, coinciding with

Tacitus as far as he goes, but including
Ephesus also. Now a monument was
found at Puteoli (see Gronov. Thes.
Grec. Ant. VII. p. 433 8q.), and is now
in the Museum at Naples (Museo
Borbonico xv, Tay. iv, v), dedicated
to Tiberius and representing fourteen
female figures with the names of four-
teen Asiatic cities underneath ; these
names being the same as those men-
tioned by Tacitus with the addition of
Ephesus and Cibyra. There can be
no doubt that this was one of those
monuments mentioned by Apollonius
quoted in Phlegon (Fragm. 42, Miiller’s
Fragm. Hist. Grec. 1. p. 621) as
erected to commemorate the liberality
of Tiberius in contributing to the re-
storation of the ruined cities (see Eckhel
Doct. Num. Vet. vt. 192 8q.). But no
earthquake at Ephesus is mentioned
by Tacitus. He does indeed speak of
such a catastrophe as happening at
Cibyra (Ann. iv. 13) six years later
than the one which ruined the twelve
cities, and of the relief which Tiberius
afforded on this latter occasion as on
the former. But we owe to Eusebius
alone the fact that Ephesus also was
seriously injured by an earthquake in
the same year—perhaps not on the
same night—with the twelve cities:
and this fact is necessary to explain

40

Bearing on
the chron-
ology of
these let-
ters.

St Mark’s
intended
visit.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. —

gives the correct date’. In this case the catastrophe was sub-
sequent to the writing of these letters. If on the other hand
the year named by Tacitus be adopted, we gain a subsidiary
confirmation of the comparatively late date which I have ven-
tured to assign to these epistles on independent grounds; for,
if they had been written two years earlier, when the blow was
recent, we might reasonably have expected to find some refer-
ence to a disaster which had devastated Laodicea and from
which Colossee cannot have escaped altogether without injury.
The additional fact mentioned by the Roman historian, that

Laodicea was rebuilt from her own resources without the usual

assistance from Rome’, is valuable as illustrating a later notice
in the Apostolic writings *.

It has been seen that, when these letters were written,
St Mark was intending shortly to visit Colosse, and that the
Apostle himself, looking forward to his release, hoped at length
to make a personal acquaintance with these churches, which
Whether

St Mark’s visit was ever paid or not, we have no means of

hitherto he knew only through the report of others.

determining *.

the monument. It should be added
that Nipperdey (on Tac. Ann. ii. 47)
supposes the earthquake at Ephesus
to have been recorded in the lost por-
tion of the fifth book of the Annals
which comprised the years A.D. 29—31;
but this bare hypothesis cannot out-
weigh the direct testimony of Euse-
bius.

1 Hertzberg (Geschichte Griechen-
lands unter der Herrschaft der Rémer

II. p. 96) supposes that Tacitus and Eu-

sebius refer to two different events,
and that Laodicea was visited by earth-
quakes twice within a few years, A.D.
6o and A.D. 65.

2 Tac. Ann. xiv. 27, quoted above,
p. 38, note 2, To this fact allusion is
made in the feigned prediction of the
Sibyllines, iv. 107 TAjjuor Aaodlxea, oe
Oe rpwoet more gerouds monvlias, orjoe

Of St Paul himself it is reasonable to assume,

dé rddw wbrw evpudyuav, where orjoee
must be the 2nd person, ‘ Thou wilt re-
build thy city with its broad streets.’
This Sibylline poem was written about
the year 80. The building of the amphi-
theatre, mentioned above (p. 6, note 6),
would form part of this work of recon-
struction.

3 See below, p. 43.

4 Two notices however imply that
St Mark had some personal connexion
with Asia Minor in the years imme-
diately succeeding the date of this re-
ference: (1) St Peter, writing to the
Churches of Asia Minor, sends a salu-
tation from St Mark (1 Pet. v. 13);
(2) St Paul gives charge to Timothy,
who appears to be still residing at
Ephesus, to take up Mark and bring
him to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11 Mdpxop
dvahaBay dye werd ceavrod). Thus it

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 4t

that in the interval between his first and second Roman cap- St Paul
tivity he found some opportunity of carrying out his design. Liga
At all events we find him at Miletus, near to the mouth of ©oloss#.
the Meander*: and the journey between this place and Lao-

dicea is neither long nor difficult.

At the time of this visit—the first and last, we may
suppose, which he paid to the valley of the Lycus—St Paul’s
direction of the Asiatic Churches is drawing to a close. With St John
his death they pass into the hands of St John’, who takes up ae
his abode in Asia Minor. Of Colossee and Hierapolis we hear
nothing more in the New Testament: but from his exile in
Patmos the beloved disciple delivers his Lord’s message to the The mes-
Church of Laodicea*; a message doubtless intended to be piste
communicated also to the two subordinate Churches, to which
it would apply almost equally well.

The message communicated by St John to Laodicea pro- Corres-

_ longs the note which was struck by St Paul in the letter to ee
Colosse. An interval of a very few years has not materially ris
altered the character of these churches, Obviously the same Gristiog.
temper prevails, the same errors are rife, the same correction

must be applied.

I, Thus, while St Paul finds it necessary to enforce the 1. The
truth that Christ is the image of the invisible God, that in {cnet
Him all the divine fulness dwells, that He existed before all of Ch™*
things, that through Him all things were created and in Him

all things are sustained, that He is the primary source (dpy7)

seems fairly probable that St Mark’s
projected visit to Colosse was paid.

1 2 Tim. iv. 20. By a strange error
Lequien (Oriens Christ. 1. p. 833)
substitutes Hierapolis for Nicopolis in
Tit. iii, 12, and argues from the pas-
sage that the Church of Hierapolis
was founded by St Paul.

2 It was apparently during the in-
terval between St Paul’s first captivity
at Rome and his death, that St Peter
wrote to the Churches of Asia Minor
‘(1 Pet. i. 1). Whether in this interval

he also visited personally the districts
evangelized directly or indirectly by
St Paul, we have no means of deciding,
Such a visit is far from unlikely, but
it can hardly have been of long dura-
tion. A copy of his letters would pro-
bably be sent to Laodicea, as a prin-
cipal centre of Christianity in Pro-
consular Asia, which is among the
provinces mentioned in the address of
the First Epistle.
3 Rev. iii. 14—21.

and prac-
tical duties
which fol-
low upon

it.

2's

Warn-

ing against
lukewarm-
ness,

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

and has the pre-eminence in all things’; so in almost identical
language St John, speaking in the person of our Lord, declares
that He is the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the primary
source (apy7) of the creation of God*. Some lingering shreds
of the old heresy, we may suppose, still hung about these
Churches, and instead of ‘holding fast the Head’ they were
even yet prone to substitute intermediate agencies, angelic
mediators, as links in the chain which should bind man to
God, They still failed to realise the majesty and significance,
the completeness, of the Person of Christ.

And the practical duty also, which follows from the recog-
nition of the theological truth, is enforced by both Apostles
in very similar language. If St Paul entreats the Colossians
to seek those things which are above, where Christ is seated on
the right hand of God’, and in the companion epistle, which
also he directs them to read, reminds the Churches that
God raised them with Christ and seated them with him in
heavenly places in Christ Jesus*; in like manner St John
gives this promise to the Laodiceans in the name of his Lord:
‘He that overcometh, I will grant to him to sit with me in my
throne, even as I also overcame and did sit with my Father in
His throne®’

2. But again; after a parting salutation to the Church of
Laodicea St Paul closes with a warning to Archippus, ap-
parently its chief pastor, to take heed to his ministry’. Some

1 Col. i. r35—18.
2 Rey. iii. 14. It should be ob-

per éuod, x.7.X. Here again it must
‘be noticed that there is no such re-

served that this designation of our
Lord () dpxh ris Krloews Tod Geos),
which so closely resembles the lan-
guage of the Colossian Epistle, does
not occur in the messages to the other
six Churches, nor do we there find
anything resembling it.

3 Col. iii. 1.

4 Ephes. ii. 6 cuvipyerpey Kal owe-
KadOuoev K.T.X.

5 Rev. iii, 21 débo0w airS xadloc

semblance in the language of the
promises to the faithful in the other
six Churches. This double coinci-
dence, affecting the two ideas which
may be said to cover the whole ground
in the Epistle to the Colossians, can
hardly, I think, be fortuitous, and
suggests an acquaintance with and
recognition of the earlier Apostle’s
teaching on the part of St John.
§ Col. iv. ry.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 43

signs of slackened zeal seem to have called forth this rebuke.
It may be an accidental coincidence, but it is at least worthy
of notice, that lukewarmness is the special sin denounced in
the angel of the Laodiceans, and that the necessity of greater
earnestness is the burden of the message to that Church*, As
with the people, so it is with the priest. The community takes
its colour from and communicates its colour to its spiritual
rulers, The ‘be zealous’ of St John is the counterpart to the
‘take heed’ of St Paul. |

3. Lastly; in the Apocalyptic message the pride of wealth 3. The
is sternly condemned in the Laodicean Church: ‘For that thou Laker are
sayest I am rich and have gotten me riches and have need nounced.
of nothing, and knowest not that thou art utterly wretched
and miserable and beggarly and blind and naked, I counsel
thee to buy gold of me refined with fire, that thou mayest
have riches’. This proud vaunt receives its best illustration
from a recent occurrence at Laodicea, to which allusion has
already been made. Only a very few years before this date an
earthquake had laid the city in ruins. Yet from this catastrophe
she rose again with more than her former splendour. This The vaunt
however was not her chief title to respect. While other cities, an a
prostrated by a like visitation, had sought relief from the con-
cessions of the Roman senate or the liberality of the emperor’s
purse, it was the glory of Laodicea that she alone neither
courted nor obtained assistance, but recovered by her own
resources. ‘Nullo a nobis remedio, says the Roman his-
torian, ‘propriis opibus revaluit’.’ Thus she had asserted a
proud independence, to which neither far-famed metropolitan
Ephesus, nor old imperial Sardis, nor her prosperous commer-

ae,

1 Rev. iii. 19. If the common view,
that by the angel of the Church its
chief pastor is meant, were correct, and
‘if Archippus (as is very probable) had
been living when St John wrote, the coin-
.cidence would be still more striking; see
Trench’s Epistles to the Seven Churches
in Asia p. 180. But for reasons given
elsewhere (Philippians p. 199 8q.), this

interpretation of the angels seems to
me incorrect,

2 Rev. iii. 17, 18, where the correct
reading with the repetition of the
definite articles, 6 raXalmwpos Kal 6
é\ewds, signifies the type, the em-
bodiment of wretchedness, ete.

3 Tac. Ann. xiv. 27.

Pride of
intellectu-
al wealth.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

cial neighbours, Apamea and Cibyra, could lay claim’, No
one would dispute her boast that she ‘had gotten riches and
had need of nothing.’ |

But is there not a second and subsidiary idea underlying
the Apocalyptic rebuke? The pride of intellectual wealth,
we may well suspect, was a temptation at Laodicea hardly less
strong than the pride of material resources. When St Paul
wrote, the theology of the Gospel and the comprehension of
the Church were alike endangered by a spirit of intellectual
exclusiveness” in these cities. He warned them against a vain
philosophy, against a show of wisdom, against an intrusive
mystic speculation, which vainly puffed up the fleshly mind®*.
He tacitly contrasted with this false intellectual wealth ‘the
riches of the glory of God’s mystery revealed in Christ’, the
riches of the full assurancé of understanding, the genuine trea-
sures of wisdom and knowledge. May not the same contrast
be discerned in the language of St John? The Laodiceans
boast of their enlightenment, but they are blind, and to cure
their blindness they must seek eye-salve from the hands of the
great Physician. They vaunt their wealth of knowledge, but
they are wretched paupers, and must beg the refined gold of
the Gospel to relieve their wants®.

This is the last notice in the Apostolic records relating to
the Churches in the valley of the Lycus; but during the suc-
ceeding ages the Christian communities of this district play
a conspicuous part in the struggles and the development of the
Church. When after the destruction of Jerusalem St John

1 In all the other cases of earth-
quake which Tacitus records as hap-
pening in these Asiatic cities, Ann.
ii. 47 (the twelve cities), iv. 13 (Ci-
byra), xii. 58 (Apamea), he mentions
the fact of their obtaining relief from
the Senate or the Emperor. On an
earlier occasion Laodicea herself had
not disdained under similar circum.
stances to receive assistance from Au-
gustus: Strabo, xii. p. 579.

2 See the next chapter of this intro-
duction.

$ Col. ii. 8, 18; 23.

wae Oe

ou. 2, 3;

§ Comp. Eph. i. 18 ‘The eyes of
your understanding being enlightened,
that ye may know what is the hope
of his calling, what the riches of the
glory of his inheritance in the saints.’

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 43

fixed his abode at Ephesus, it would appear that not a few genes
the oldest surviving members of the Palestinian Church ac- gettle in

companied him into ‘Asia, which henceforward became the fi atia
head-quarters of Apostolic authority. In this body of emi-

grants Andrew* and Philip among the twelve, Aristion and

John the presbyter? among other personal disciples of the

Lord, are especially mentioned.

Among the chief settlements of this Christian dispersion was and espe~
Hierapolis. This fact explains how these Phrygian Churches Siecaes
assumed a prominence in the ecclesiastical history of the second 1
century, for which we are hardly prepared by their antecedents

as they appear in connexion with St Paul, and which they

failed to maintain in the history of the later Church.
Here at all events was settled Philip of Bethsaida’®, the

1 Canon Murator. fol. 1, 1. 14 (p. 17;
ed, Tregelles), Cureton’s Ancient Sy-
viac Documents pp. 32, 34. Comp.
Papias in Euseb. H. £. iii. 39.

2 Papias in Huseb. H. LE. iii. 39.

3 Polycrates in Euseb. H. LE. iii. 31,
Vv. 24 Bidurmor [riv] TSv GWdexa dro-
orédwy, os Kexolunrac év ‘TepamoXet,
xal Sto Ovyarépes adrov yeynpaxviat
mapbévor, Kal 4 érépa atrov Ovydrnp év
dyly mveduare modtrevoapévn, % év
"Edécy dvaravera. To this third
daughter the statement of Clement of
Alexandria must refer, though by a
common looseness of expression he
uses the plural number (Euseb. H. E.
iii, 30) 7 xal rods drogTdXovs drodo-
Kydoovor Ilérpos pév yap kat Pidurmos
éradoroijoavro, Pihirmos 6€ Kxal ras
Ovyarépas dvipdow é&édwxe. On the
other hand in the Dialogue between
Gaius and Proclus, Philip the Evan-
gelist was represented as residing at
Hierapolis (Euseb. H. H. iii. 31) pera
ouroy 6€ wpopyrides téooapes ai Pl-
Aurmov yeyéevyvrat év ‘lepamode TH Kara.
tiv ’Actav’ 6 tadgos aira&v éoriv éxe?, Kat
6 Tov marpds adréy, where the mention
of the four daughters prophesying idon-

tifies the person meant (see Acts xxi.
8). Nothing can be clearer than that
St Luke distinguishes Philip the Evan-
gelist from Philip the Apostle; for
(1) When the Seven are appointed, he
distinctly states that this new oftice
is created to relieve the Twelve of some
onerous duties (Acts vi. 2—s). . (2) Af-
ter Philip the Evangelist has preached
in Samaria, two of the Twelve are sent
thither to convey the gifts of the Spirit,
which required the presence of an
Apostle (viii. 14—~17). (3) When St
Paul and his companions visit Philip
at Cesarea, he is carefully described
as ‘the Evangelist, being one of the
Seven’ (xxi. 8). As St Luke was a
member of the Apostle’s company
when this visit was paid, and stayed
‘many days’. in Philip’s house, the
accuracy of his information cannot be
questioned. Yet Eusebius (H. £.-iii.
31) assumes the identity of the Apostle
with the Evangelist, and describes the
notice in the Dialogue of Gaius and
Proclus as being ‘in harmony with
(cvrgdwv)’ the language of Polycrates.
And accordingly in another passage
(H. E. iii. 39), when he has occasion

46 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

Philip the early friend and fellow-townsman of St John, and the first
aa leas Apostle who is recorded to have held communication with

with his
daughters. the Gentiles. Here he died and was buried; and here after

to mention the conversations of Papias
with Philip’s daughters at Hierapolis,
he again supposes them to be the same
who are mentioned in the Acts.

My reasons for believing that the
Philip who lived at Hierapolis was not
the Evangelist, but the Apostle, are as
follows. (1) This is distinctly stated
by the earliest witness, Polycrates,
who was bishop of Ephesus at the
close of the second century, and who
besides claimed to have and probably
had special opportunities of knowing
early traditions. It is confirmed more-
over by the notice in Clement. of
Alexandria, who is the next in order
of time, and whose means of infor-
mation also were good, for one of
his earliest teachers was an Ionian
Greek (Strom. 1. 1, p. 322). (2) The
other view depends solely on the au-
thority of the Dialogue of Gaius and
Proclus. I have given reasons else-
where for questioning the separate ex-
istence of the Roman presbyter Gaius,
and for supposing that this dialogue
was written by Hippolytus bishop of
Portus (Journal of Philology 1. p. 98
sq., Cambridge, 1868). But however
this may be, its author was a Roman
ecclesiastic, and probably wrote some
quarter of a century at least after
Polycrates. In all respects therefore
his authority is inferior. Moreover
it is suspicious inform. It mentions
four daughters instead of three, makes
them all virgins, and represents them
as prophetesses, thus showing a dis-
tinct aim of reproducing the particu-
lars as given in Acts xxi, 9; whereas
the account of Polycrates is divergent
in all three respects. (3) A life-long
friendship would naturally draw Philip
the Apostle of Bethsaida after John,

as it also drew Andrew. And, when
we turn to St John’s Gospel, we can
hardly resist the impression that inci-
dents relating to Andrew and Philip
had a special interest, not only for
the writer of the Gospel, but also for
his hearers (John i, 40, 43—46, Vi.
5—8, xil. 20—22, xiv. 8, 9). Moreover
the Apostles Andrew and Philip appear
in this Gospel as inseparable com:
panions, (4) Lastly; when Papias men-
tions collecting the sayings of the
Twelve and of other early disciples
from those who heard them, he gives
a prominent place to these two Apos-
tles rb ’Avdpéas ... elrev 9} rl BlidAurros,
but there is no reference to Philip the
Evangelist. When therefore we read
later that he conversed with the
daughters of Philip, it seems natural
to infer that the Philip intended is
the same person whom he has men-
tioned previously. It should be added,
though no great value can be assign-
ed to such channels of information,
that the Acts of Philip place the
Apostle at Hierapolis; Tischendorf,
Act. Apost. Apocr. p. 75 8q.

On the other hand, those who sup-
pose that the TEivangelist, and not
the Apostle, resided at Hierapolis, ac-
count for the other form of the tra-
dition by the natural desire of the
Asiatic Churches to trace their spiritual
descent directly from the Twelve, This
solution of the phenomenon might have
been accepted, if the authorities in
favour of Philip the Evangelist had
been prior in time and superior in
quality. There is no improbability
in supposing that both the Philips
were married and had daughters,

1 John xii. 20.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

his decease lived his two virgin daughters, who survived to a

very advanced age and thus handed down to the second century —

the traditions of the earliest days of the Church. A third

daughter, who was married, had settled in Ephesus, where

47

her body rested*. It was from the two daughters who resided Their tra.

at Hierapolis, that Papias heard several stories of the first

collected

preachers of the Gospel, which he transmitted to posterity in >y Papias.

his work’. '

This Papias had conversed not only with the daughiers
of Philip, but also with at least two personal disciples of the
Lord, Aristion and John the presbyter. He made it his busi-
ness to gather traditions respecting the sayings of the Saviour
and His Apostles; and he published a work in five books,
entitled An-Hzxposition of Oracles of the Lord, using the
information thus collected to illustrate the discourses, and
perhaps the doings, of Christ as recorded in the Gospels®*.
Among other stories he related, apparently on the authority
of these daughters of Philip, how a certain dead man had
been restored to life in his own day, and how Justus Barsabas,
who is mentioned in the Acts, had drunk a deadly poison and

miraculously escaped from any evil effects‘.

1 See above p. 45, note 3.

2 Kuseb. H. FE. iii. 39. This is the
general reference for all those particu-
lars respecting Papias which are de-
rived from Eusebius.

3 See Westcott, Canon p. 63. On
the opinions of Papias and on the
nature of his work, I may perhaps be
allowed to refer to articles in the
Contemporary Review Aug. 1867, Aug.
and Sept. 1875, where I have investi-
gated the notices of this father. The
object of Papias’ work was not to con-
struct a Gospel narrative, but to in-
terpret and illustrate those already
existing. I ought to add that on two
minor points, the martyrdom of Papias
and the identity of Philip with the Evan-
gelist, I have been led to modify my
views since the first article was written.

4 Huseb. l.c. ds 5¢ card rods adrods
6 Ilamias yevduevos dufyynow mapedy-
pévat Oavuaclay brd [drd?] rav Tov
@iNlrrov Ovyatépwv pvynuovedear, Ta viv
onuewtéov' vexpov yap dvdoracw Kar
aitoy yeyovutay lorope?, kal ad wédw
Erepov mapddotov epi “lotsrov tov ém-
khnbévra BapoaBav yeyovbs x.7.r. The
information respecting the raising of
the dead man might have come from
the daughters of Philip, as the context
seems certainly to imply, while yet the
event happened in Papias’ own time
{xar’ adrév). It will be remembered
that even Ireneus mentions similar
miracles as occurring in his own age
(Her. ii, 32, 4). .Eusebius does not
say that the miraculous preservation

of Justus Barsabas also occurred in

the time of Papias.

48

Life and
teaching
of Parras.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

If we may judge by his name, PAPIAS was a native of
Phrygia, probably of Hierapolis’, of which he afterwards be-
came bishop, and must have grown up to youth or early man-

hood before the close of the first century.

He is said to have

suffered martyrdom at Pergamum about the year 165; but
there is good reason for distrusting this statement, independ-
ently of any chronological difficulty which it involves?» Other-

1 Papias, or (as it is very frequently
written in inscriptions) Pappias, is a
common Phrygian name. It is found
several times at Hiecrapolis, not only
in inscriptions (Boeckh Corp. Inscr.
No. 3930, 3912 a add.) but even on
coins (Mionnet Iv. p. 301). This is
explained by the fact that it was
an epithet of the Hierapolitan Zeus
(Boeckh 3817 Tamla Aw cwrfjpz), just as
in Bithynia this same god was called
Ildzras (Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 1048; seo
Boeckh Corp. Inscr. Il. p. 1051).
Hence as the name of a mortal it is
equivalent to the Greek Diogenes; e.g.
Boeckh no. 3912 @ add., Ilamias rou
Zrpdrwros 6 Kadovmevos Atcoyévys. Galen
also mentions a physician of Laodicea,
bearing this name (Op. x11. p. 799, ed.
Kiihn). In an inscription at Tra-
janopolis we meet with it in a curious
conjunction with other familiar names
(Boeckh no, 3865 i add.) ILammlas Tpo-
giuov kal Tuxixfs «7.4. (see Wad-
dington on Le Bas, Inser. no, 718).
This last belongs to the year A.D. 199.
On other analogous Phrygian names
see the introduction to the Epistle to
Philemon.

Thus at Hierapolis the name Papias
is derived from heathen mythology,
and accordingly the persons bearing it
on the inscriptions and coins are all
heathens. It may therefore be pre-
sumed that our Papias was of Gentile
origin. The inference however is not
absolutely certain. A rabbi of this
name is mentioned in the Mishna
Shekalim iv. 7, Edaioth vii. 6. These

two references are given by Zunz Namen
der Juden p. 16.

2 Chron. Pasch. sub. ann. 163 oiv
TQ Gyly 5é IloduKdprw Kat ddroe 6’ aro
Piradergelas maprupovow év Uuvpry’ Kat
év Ilepydmm 6é Erepot, év ols qv xai Ia-
mas kat &doe woAdol, dy Kal &yypada |
gépovrae Ta papripia. See also the
Syrian epitome of Euseb. Chron. (11.
p. 216 ed. Schéne) ‘Cum persecutio in
Asia esset, Polycarpos martyrium subiit
et Papias, quorum martyria in libro
(scripta) extant,’ but the Armenian
version of the Chronicon mentions only
Polycarp, while Jerome says ‘ Poly-
carpus et Pionius fecere martyrium.’
In his history (iv. 15) Eusebius, after
quoting the Martyrdom of Polycarp at
length, adds év rq airy 6e wept adbrov
ypady Kal dAXa maprip.a curhrro
... wed” Gv kat Myrpddwpos ... dvjpnrac
Tay ye why TéTE TeplBonTwY papTopuwy ets
wis éyvwplfero Ilcdvios... €&9s dé Kal
dAX\wy év Ilepydum moder ris “Actas brro-
para jenapTrupnkdtwv péperat, Kadp-
mov kat IlamrvXov Kal yuvatxos ’Aya-
Oovixns x.7.X. He here apparently falls
into the error of imagining that Metro-
dorus, Pionius, Carpus, Papylus, and
the others were martyred under M.
Aurelius, whereas we know from their
extant Acts that they suffered in the
Decian persecution. For the Martyr-
doms of Pionius and Metrodorus see
Act. SS, Bolland. Feb. 1; for those of
Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonica, ib.
April 13. The Acts of the former,
which are included in Ruinart (Act.
Sinc. Mart. p, 120 sq., 1689) are appa-

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 49

Eusebius, to Recguen of

wise he must have lived to a very advanced age. ote

whom chiefly we owe our information respecting him, was
repelled by his millennarian views, and describes him as a man
__ of mean intelligence’, accusing him of misunderstanding the
i Apostolic sayings respecting the kingdom of Christ and thus
___ interpreting in a material sense expressions which were intended
_ to be mystical and symbolical. This disparaging account,
though one-sided, was indeed not altogether undeserved, for
his love of the marvellous seems to have overpowered his
faculty of discrimination. But the adverse verdict of Eusebius
must be corrected by the more sympathetic language of Ire-
nus’, who possibly may have known him personally, and who
certainly must have been well acquainted with his ge adh
and character,

Much has been written respecting the relation of this
writer to the Canonical Gospels, but the discussion has no very
direct bearing on our special subject, and may be dismissed
here*. One question however, which has a real importance

rently the same which were seen by
Eusebius. Those of the latter are a
late compilation of the Metaphrast,
but were perhaps founded on the
earlier document. At all events the
tradition of the persecution in which
they suffered could hardly have heen
perverted or lost, Eusebius seems to
have found their Acts bound up in the
same volume with those of Polycarp,
and without reading them through, to
have drawn the hasty inference that
they suffered at the same time. But
notwithstanding the error, or perhaps
owing to it, this passage in the Eccle-
siastical History, by a confusion of the
names Papias and Papylus, seems to
have given rise to the statement re-
specting Papias in the Chronicon Pas-
chale and in the Syrian epitome, as it
obviously has misled Jerome respecting
Pionius. This part of the Chronicon
Paschale is plainly taken from Eu-
sebius, as the coincidences of expres-

CoOL.

sion and the sequence of events alike
show. The martyrdom of Papias there-
fore appears to be a fiction, and he may
have died a natural death at an earlier
date. Polycarp’s martyrdom is shown
by M. Waddington’s investigations to

chave taken place a.D. 155 or 156; see

Mémoire sur la Chronologie du Rhéteur
Aélius Aristide p. 232 sq., in the Mém.
de V Acad. des Inscr. xxv1 (1867).

1H. E. iii. 39 opddpa opixpos rov
vouv. In another passage (iii. 36), as
commonly read, Eusebius makes par-
tial amends to Papias by calling him
dvijp Ta wavra ore paduoTa Aoywraros
kal Tis ypapys elinuwy, but this pas-
sage is found to be a spurious inter-
polation (see Contemporary Review,
August, 1867, p. 12), and was probably
added by some one who was acquainted
with the work of Papias and desired
to do him justice,

* Tren. v. 33. 3, 4.

3 See on this subject Westcott Canon

4

5O THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

as affecting the progress of the Gospel in these parts, has been
raised by modern criticism and must not be passed over in
silence. |
Amodern It has been supposed that there was an entire dislocation
abl sae and discontinuity in the history of Christianity in Asia Minor
scan at a certain epoch; that the Apostle of the Gentiles was
AsiaMinor ignored and his teaching repudiated, if not anathematized ;
Jkt nas and that on its ruins was erected the standard of Judaism,
around which with a marvellous unanimity deserters from the
Pauline Gospel rallied. Of this retrograde faith St John is
supposed to have been the great champion, and Papias a
typical and important representative’.

The subject, as a whole, is too wide for a full investigation
here. I must content myself with occupying a limited area,
showing not only the historical baselessness, but the strong
inherent improbability of the theory, as applied to Hierapolis
and the neighbouring churches. As this district is its chief
strong-hold, a repulse at this point must involve its ultimate
defeat along the whole line.

The posi- Of St John himself I have already spoken® It has been
non of St shown that his language addressed to these Churches is not
only not opposed to St Paul’s teaching, but presents remark-

able coincidences with it. So far at least the theory finds no
support ; and, when from St John we turn to Papias, the case

is not different. The advocates of the hypothesis in question

andof lay the chief stress of their argument on the silence of Papias,
Papias. or rather of Eusebius. Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias,
in which the bishop of Hierapolis mentions collecting from
trustworthy sources the sayings of certain Apostles and early
disciples; but St Paul is not named among them. He also

gives short extracts from Papias referring to the Gospels of

St Matthew and St Mark, and mentions that this writer made

p- 64 8q.; Contemporary Review, Au- or in Schwegler’s Nachapostolisches

gust and September, 1875. Zeitalter. It has been reproduced (at

1 The theory of the Tiibingen school least as far as regards the Asiatic

may be studied in Baur’s Christliche Churches) by Renan S. Paul p. 366 sq.
Kirche der dret ersten Jahrhunderte * See above p. 41 sq.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

use of the first Epistle of St John and the first Epistle of St
Peter; but here again there is no allusion to St Paul’s writings.
Whether referring to the personal testimony or to the Canon-
ical writings of the Apostles, Papias, we are reminded, is
equally silent about St Paul.

On both these points a satisfactory answer can be given ;
but the two cases are essentially different, and must be con-
sidered apart.

51

(1) The range of personal testimony which Papias would be 1. The

traditions

able to collect depended on his opportunities. Before he had collected

grown up to manhood, the personal reminiscences of St Paul
would have almost died out. The Apostle of the Gentiles had
not resided more than three years even at Ephesus, and seems
to have paid only one brief visit to the valley of the Lycus, even
if he visited it at all. Such recollections of St Paul as might
once have lingered here would certainly be overshadowed by
and forgotten in the later sojourn of St John, which, beginning
where they ceased, extended over more than a quarter of a cen-
tury. To St John, and to those personal disciples of Christ who
surrounded him, Papias and his contemporaries would naturally
and almost inevitably look for the traditions which they so
eagerly collected. This is the case with the leading representa-
tive of the Asiatic school in the next generation, Irenzus,
whose traditions are almost wholly derived from St John and
his companions, while at the same time he evinces an entire
sympathy with the work and teaching of St Paul. But indeed,
_ even if it had been otherwise, the object which Papias had
. directly in view did not suggest any appeal to St Paul’s
authority. He was writing an ‘Exposition of Oracles of the
Lord, and he sought to supplement and interpret these by
_ traditions of our Lord’s life, such as eyewitnesses only could
} give. St Paul could have no place among those personal

|| disciples of Christ, of whom alone he is speaking in this preface

| ; to his work, which Eusebius quotes.
| @)_:-_ But, though we have no right to expect any mention
|| of St Paul where the appeal is to personal testimony, yet with

4—2

by Papias.

2. His re-
ferences to

52 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

theCa- quotations from or references to the Canonical writings
area the case, it may be argued, is different. Here at all events we
might look for some recognition of St Paul. To this argument
it would perhaps be a sufficient reply, that St Paul’s Epistles
do not furnish any matter which must necessarily have been
introduced into a work such as Papias composed. But the
complete and decisive answer is this; that the silence of Euse-
bius, so far from carrying with it the silence of Papias, does not
No weight even afford a presumption in this direction. Papias may have
Dre quoted St Paul again and again, and yet Eusebius would see
the silence no reason to chronicle the fact. His usage in other cases is
bius. decisive on this point. The Epistle of Polycarp which was
read by Eusebius is the same which we still possess. Not
only does it teem with the most obvious quotations from St
Paul, but in one passage it directly mentions his writing to the
Philippians’. Yet the historian, describing its relation to the
Canonical Scriptures, contents himself with saying that it ‘em-
ploys some testimonies from the former Epistle of Peter*’
Exactly similar is his language respecting Irenzus also. Ire-
nus, as is well known, cites by name almost every one of St
Paul’s Epistles; yet the description which Eusebius gives under
this same head, after quoting this writer’s notices respecting
the history of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, is that ‘he
mentions also the first Epistle of John, alleging very many
testimonies from it, and in like manner also the former Epistle
of Peter®’ There is every reason therefore to suppose that
Eusebius would deal with Papias as he has dealt with Polycarp

and Irenzus, and that, unless Papias had introduced some

1 § 3. Polycarp, in which St Paul’s name
2 H.E. iv. 14 6 yé tot IlodtiKapros is mentioned; but the quotation is
év 77 SnwOeloy rpds Pitrmyolovs avrod brought to illustrate the life of Igna-
ypapy pepouévy els Setpo xéxpyrat riot tius, and the mention of the Apostle
paprupias aro Tis Tlérpov mporépas ért- _ there is purely accidental,
oro\js. This is all that Eusebius 3H. E. v. 8 wéuynrac 5é xal rhs
says with reference to Polycarp’s know- “"Iwdvvou mpiurys émisrodfs, papripia éf
ledge of the Canonical writings. It aurijs rdeiora elogépwv, spolws 52 nal
so happens that in an earlier passage ijs Ilérpou mporépas.
(iii. 36) he has given an extract from

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

curious fact relating to St Paul, it would not have occurred
to him to record mere quotations from or references to this
Apostle’s letters. It may be supposed that Eusebius records
with a fair amount of attention references to the Catholic
Epistles in early writers, because the limits of the Canon in
this part were not accurately fixed. On the other hand the
Epistles of St Paul were universally received and therefore
did not need to be accredited by any such testimony. But
whatever may be the explanation, the fact is patent, and it
furnishes a complete answer to the argument drawn from his
silence in the case of Papias*.

. But, if the assumption has been proved to be baseless, have
we any grounds for saying that it is also highly improbable ?
Here it seems fair to argue from the well-known to the un-
known. Of the opinions of Papias respecting St Paul we know
absolutely nothing ; of the opinions of Polycarp and Ireneus
ample evidence lies before us. Noscitur a sociis is a sound
maxim to apply in such a case. Papias was a companion of
Polycarp, and he is quoted with deference by Ireneus*. Is it
probable that his opinions should be diametrically opposed to
those of his friend and contemporary on a cardinal point affect-
ing the very conception of Christianity (for the rejection of
St Paul must be considered in this light)? or that this vital
heterodoxy, if it existed, should have escaped an intelligent
critic of the next generation who had the five books of his
work before him, who himself had passed his early life in Asia

1 Tt is necessary to press this argu-
ment, because though it has never been
answered and (so far as I can see) is
quite unanswerable, yet thoughtful
men, who have no sympathy with the
Tiibingen views of early Christian his-
tory, still continue to argue from the
silence of Eusebius, as though it had
some real significance. To illustrate
the omissions of Eusebius I have given
only the instances of Polycarp and
Irenwus, because they are historically
connected with Papias; but his silence

is even more remarkable in other cases.
Thus, when speaking of the epistle of
the Roman Clement (H. Z. iii. 38), he
alludes to the coincidences with the
Epistle to the Hebrews, but omits to
mention the direct references to St
Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians
which is referred to by name. I have
discussed the whole subject in the
Contemporary Review, ares 1875s
p- 169 sq.
3 Tren. Har. v. 33. 4-

a3

The views
of Papias
inferred

from his

associates.

54 :

Millenna-
rian views
consistent
with the
recogni-
tion of

St Paul.

ABERCIUS

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

Minor, and who yet appeals to Papias as preserving the doc-
trinal tradition which had been handed down from the Apostles
themselves to his own time? I say nothing of Eusebius himself,
who, with a distinct prejudice against Papias, accuses him of
no worse heresy in his writings than entertaining millennarian
views.

It may indeed be confessed that a man like Papias, whose
natural bent, assisted by his Phrygian education, was towards
sensuous views of religion, would not be likely to appreciate the
essentially spiritual teaching of St Paul; but this proves nothing.
The difference between unconscious want of sympathy and con-
scious rejection is all-important for the matter in hand. The
same charge might be brought against numberless theologians,
whether in the middle ages or in more modern times, into whose
minds it never entered to question the authority of the Apostle
and who quote his writings. with the utmost reverence. Nei-
ther in the primitive days of Christianity nor in its later
stages has the profession of Chiliastic views been found in-
consistent with the fullest recognition of St Paul’s Apostolic
In the early Church Ireneus and Tertullian are
notable instances of this combination; and in our own age and
country a tendency to millennarian speculations has been com-
monly associated with the staunchest adherence to the funda-
mental doctrines of St Paul. ?

As the successor of Papias and the predecessor of Claudius
Apollinaris in the see of Hierapolis, we may perhaps name
ABERCIUS or AvircIUs*. His legendary Acts assign his epi-

claims.

1 The life of this Abercius is print-
ed in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum
Oct. 22. It may safely be pronounced
spurious. Among other incidents, the
saint goes to Rome and casts out a
demon from Lucilla, the daughter of
M. Aurelius and Faustina, at the same
time compelling the demon to take up
an altar from Rome and transport it
through the air to Hierapolis, But
these Acts, though legendary them-

selves, contain an epitaph which has
the ring of genuineness and which
seems to have suggested the story to
the pious forger who invented the
Acts. This very interesting memorial
is given and discussed at length by
Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. 111. p. 5328q. Itis
inscribed by one Abercius of Hierapolis
on his tomb, which he erected during
his life-time. He declares himself a
disciple of the good shepherd, who

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS. 55

scupate to the reign of Marcus Aurelius; and, though they probably
: 1s succes-

are disfigured by extravagant fictions, yet the date may perhaps sor.

be accepted, as it seems to be confirmed by other evidence.

An inscription on his tombstone recorded how he had paid one

taught him trustworthy writings (ypdu-
para mord) and sent him to visit
queenly Rome, where he saw a people
sealed with the bright seal [of bap-
tism]. He recounts also a journey to
Syria and the East, when he crossed
the Euphrates. He says that faith
served up to him as a banquet the
ly8yc from the fountain, giving him
bread and wine. He states that he
has reached his 72nd year. And he
closes by threatening with severe pe-
nalties those who disturb his tomb.

The resemblance of this inscription to

others found in situ in the cemetery at
Hierapolis, after allowance made for
the Christian element, is very striking.
The commencement ’ExXexrijs rod\ews
closely resembles the form of another
Hierapolitan inscription, Boeckh Corp.
Inser. 3906; the enumeration of fo-
reign tours has a counterpart in the
monument of one Flavius Zeuxis which
states that the deceased had made 72
voyages round the promontory of Ma-
lea to Italy (ib. 3920); and lastly, the
prohibition against putting another
grave upon his, and the imposition of
fines to be paid to the treasury and

the city if this injunction is violated, .

are echos of language which occurs
again and again on tombstones in this
city (ib. 3915, 3916, 3922, 3923, etc.).
Out of this epitaph, which he found
probably at Hierapolis, and which, as he
himself tells us (§ 41), was in a much
mutilated condition, the legend-writer
apparently created his story, interpret-
ing the queen, by which Abercius him-
self probably meant the city of Rome,

to be the empress Faustina, with whom.

the saint is represented as haying an

interview, M. Aurelius himself being

absent at the time on his German cam-
paign. This view, that the epitaph is
genuine and gave rise to the Acts, is
also maintained by Garrucci (Civilta
Cattolica 1856, I. p.683, 11. p.84, quoted
in the Acta Sanct. 1. ¢.), whose criti-
cisms however are not always sound;
and indeed as a whole it bears every
mark of authenticity, though possibly
it may contain some interpolations,
which its mutilated condition would
encourage. The name Aburcius oc-
curs in Corp. Inscr, Lat. vi. 127.

The inscription itself however does
not tell us what office Abercius held or
when he lived. There was a person of
this name, bishop of Hierapolis, present
at the Council of Chalcedon a.p. 451
(Labb. Cone. tv. 862, 1204, 1341, 1392,
1496, 1744, ed.Coleti). But achief pastor |
of the Church at this late date would
have declared his office plainly; and the:
inscription points to a more primitive
age, for the expressions are archaic and
the writer seems to veil his profession of
Christianity under language studiously :
obscure, The open profession of Chris-
tianity on inscriptions occars at an
earlier date in these parts than else-
where. Already the word ypICTIANOC |

or YPHCTIANOC is found on tomb-
stones of the third century; Boeckh
Corp. Inser. 3857 8, 3857 P, 3865 1; see
Renan Saint Paul p. 363. Thus we
are entirely at fault unless we accept
the statement in the Acts.

And it is not unreasonable to sup-
pose that, so far as regards the date
and office of Abercius, the writer of
these Acts followed some adequate
historical tradition. Nor indeed is
his statement altogether without con-
firmation. We have evidence that a

56

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

His jour- visit to the city of Rome, and another to the banks of the
Euphrates. ‘These long journeys are not without parallels in

neys.

_ the lives of contemporary bishops.

Polycarp of Smyrna visited

Rome, hoping to adjust the Paschal controversy; Melito of

person bearing this name lived in these
parts of Asia Minor, somewhere about
this time. An unknown writer of a
polemical tract against Montanism de-
dicates his work to one Avircius Mar-
cellus, at whose instigation it was
written. Eusebius (H. Z. v. 16), who
is our authority for this fact, relates
that Montanism found a determined
and formidable opponent in Apollina-
ris at Hierapolis and ‘several other
learned men of that day with him,’
who left large materials for a His-
tory of the movement. He then goes
on to say; dpxduevos yodv ris Kar’
aitav ypadfs Tay elpnuévwv 6% Tes
..-TMpootudgerat...rooroy Tov Tpbmrov’ *Ex
mrelcrov bcouv Kal tkaywrdrov xpévou,
dyamnré "Aovlpxue Mdpxedre, ériraxdels
td cov cuyypdpar Twa Abyov K.T.A.y
i.e. ‘One of the aforesaid writers at
the commencement of his treatise
against them (the Montanists) etc.’
May not the person here addressed be
the Abercius of the epitaph?

But if so, who is the writer that
addresses him, and when did he live?
Some mss omit 6 71s, and others sub-
stitute 757, thus making Apollinaris
himself the writer. But the words
seem certainly to have been part of
the original text, as the sense requires
them ; for if they are omitted, rap ei-
pnuévwv must be connected with kar’
avrav, where it is not wanted. Thus
Eusebius quotes the writer anony-
mously; and those who assign the
treatise to Apollinaris cannot plead
the authority of the original text of
the historian himself.

But after all may it not have been
written by Apollinaris, though Euse-

bius was uncertain about the author-
ship? He quotes in succession three
cvyypdupara or treatises, speaking of
them as though they emanated from
the same author. The first of these,
from which the address to Avircius
Marcellus is quoted, might very well
have been composed soon after the
Montanist controversy broke out (as
Eusebius himself elsewhere states was
the case with the work of Apollinaris,
iv. 27 Kata Tis rév Ppvydy alpécews
...womep éexptew apxoudvyns); but the
second and third distinctly state that
they were written some time after the
death of Montanus. May not Euse-
bius have had before him a volume
containing a collection of tracts against
Montanism ‘by Claudius Apollinaris
and others,’ in which the authorship
of the several tracts was not distinctly
marked? This hypothesis would ex-
plain the words with which he pre-
faces his extracts, and would also ac-
count for his vague manner of quota-
tion. It would also explain the omis-
sion of 64 7s in some texts (the
ancient Syriac version boldly sub-
stitutes the name of Apollinaris), and
would explain how Rufinus, Nicepho-
rus, and others, who might have had
independent information, ascribed the
treatise to this father. I have al-
ready pointed out how Eusebius was
led into a similar error of connecting
together several martyrologies and
treating them as contemporaneous, be-
cause they were collected in the same
volume (p. 48, note 2), Elsewhere
too I have endeavoured to show that
he mistook the authorship of a tract
which was bound up with others,

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 57

Sardis went as far as Palestine, desiring to ascertain on the
spot the facts relating to the Canon of the Old Testament
Scriptures. These or similar motives may have influenced
Abercius to undertake his distant journeys. If we may assume
the identification of this bishop with one Avircius Marcellus
who is mentioned in a contemporary document, he took an
active interest in the Montanist controversy, as from. his
position he was likely to do, ‘itis

The literary character of the see of Hierapolis, which had Cravpivs
been inaugurated by Papias, was ably sustained by CLAUDIUS sit bic
APOLLINARIS. His surname, which seems to have been com- Shop of

Hierapo-

mon in these parts’, may have been derived from the patron lis.

owing to the absence of a title (Caius
or Hippolytus ? in the Journal of Phi-
lology 1. p. 98 8q.).

On this hypothesis, Claudius Apol-
linaris would very probably be the
author of the first of these treatises.
If so, it would appear to have been
_ written while he was still a presbyter,
at the instigation of his bishop Avir-
cius Marcellus whom he succeeded not
long after in the see of Hierapolis.

If on the other hand Eusebius has
correctly assigned the first treatise to
the same writer as the second and
third, who must have written after the
beginning of the third century, Avir-
cius Marcellus to whom it is addressed
cannot have held the see of Hierapolis
during the reign of M. Aurelius (a.p.
161—180); and, if he was ever bishop
of this city, must have been a successor,
not a predecessor, of Claudius Apolli-
naris. In this case we have the alter-
native of abandoning the identification
of this Avircius with the Hierapolitan
bishop of the same name, or of reject-
ing the statement of the Acts which
places his episcopate in this reign.

- The occurrence of the name Aber-
cins in the later history of the see of
Hierapolis (see p. 55) is no argument

against the existence of this earlier
bishop. It was no uncommon practice
for the later occupants of sees to assume
the name of some famous predecessor
who lived in primitive or early times.
The case of Ignatius at Antioch is only
one of several examples which might
be produced.

There is some ground for supposing
that, like Papias and Apollinaris,
Abercius earned a place in literary
history. Baronio had in his hands an
epistle to M. Aurelius, purporting to
have been written by this Abercius,
which he obviously considered genuine
and which he describes as ‘ apostoli-
cum redolens spiritum,’ promising to
publish it in his Annals (Martyr. Rom.
Oct. 22). To his great grief however
he afterwards lost it (‘doluimus vehe-
menter e manibus nostris elapsam
nescio quomodo’), and was therefore
unable to fulfil his promise {Annal. s.a.
163, n. 15). A BiBdos didackadias by
Abercius is mentioned in the Acts
(§ 39); but this, if it ever existed, was
doubtless spurious.

1 Some of the family, as we may
infer from the monuments, held a
high position in another Phrygian
town. On a tablet at Hzani, on which

58

His liter-
ary works.

He takes

part in the

two chief
controver-
sies of the

day.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

deity of Hierapolis* and suggests a Gentile origin. His inti-
mate acquaintance with heathen literature, which is mentioned
by more than one ancient writer, points in the same direction,
During the reign of M. Aurelius he had already made himself
a name by his writings, and seems to have been promoted to
the see of Hierapolis before the death of that emperor’.

Of his works, which were very numerous, only a few scanty
fragments have survived*, The imperfect lists however, which
have reached us, bear ample testimony both to the literary
activity of the man, and to the prominence of the Church over
which he presided, in the great theological and ecclesiastical

controversies of the age.

The two questions, which especially agitated the Churches
of Asia Minor during the last thirty years of the first century,
were the celebration of the Easter festival and the pretensions

of the Montanist prophets.

In both disputes Claudius Apolli-

naris took an active and conspicuous part.
1. The Paschal controversy, after smouldering long both

is inscribed a letter from the emperor
Septimius Severus in reply to the con-
gratulations of the people at the ele-
vation of Caracalla to the rank of Au-
gustus (A.D. 198), we find the name of
KAAYAIOC . ATIOAAINAPIOC . AYPHAIA-
NOC, Boeckh 3837 (see m1. p. 1066
add.). In another inscription at the
same place, the same or another mem-
ber of the family is commemorated as
holding the office of pretor for the
second time, CTPATH[OYNTOC. TO. B.
KA . ATIOAAINAPIOY ; Boeckh 3840,
ib. p. 1067. See also the inscriptions
3842 6, 3846 z (ib. pp. 1069, 1078) at
the same place, where again the name
Apollinarius occurs. It is found also
at Appia no. 3857 b (ib. p. 1086). Atan
earlier date one Claudius Apollinaris
appears in command of the Roman
fleet at Misenum (Tac. Hist. iii. 57, 76,
77). The name occurs also at Hiera-
polis itself, Boeckh, no. 3915, TT.

AIAIOC . TT. AIAIOY . ATTOAAINAPIOY «
loyAlano[y].yioc . ce[...]. aTTOAAI-
NAPIC . MAKEAODN . x.7.A., Which shows
that both the forms, Apollinaris and
Apollinarius, by which the bishop of
Hierapolis is designated, are legitimate.
The former however is the correct
Latin form, the latter being the Greek
adaptation.

More than a generation later than
our Apollinaris, Origen in his letter to
Africanus (Op. 1. 30, Delarue) sends
greeting to a bishop bearing this name
(rov Kadov Hus mdmav Aroduwdpiov), of
whom nothing more is known,

1 Apollo Archegetes; see above p.
12, note I.

2 Kuseb. H. E. iv. 26, Chron. 8. a.
171, 172, ‘Apollinaris Asianus, Hiera-
politanus episcopus, insignis habetur.’

3 Collected in Routh’s Reliquie Sa-
cr@ I. p. 159 8q., and more recently in
Otto’s Corp. Apol. Christ. 1x. p. 479 8q.

-THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS. 59

here and elsewhere, first burst into flames in the neighbouring 1. The
Church of Laodicea*. An able bishop of Hierapolis therefore phan
must necessarily have been involved in the dispute, even if he

hhad been desirous of avoiding it. What side Apollinaris took

in the controversy the extant fragments of his work do not

by themselves enable us to decide; for they deal merely with

a subsidiary question which does not seriously affect the main

issue’. But we can hardly doubt that with Polycarp of
Smyrna and Melito of Sardis and Polycrates of Ephesus he
defended the practice which was universal in Asia*, observing

the Paschal anniversary on the 14th Nisan whether it fell on

a Friday or not, and invoking the authority of St John at
Ephesus, and of St Philip at his own Hierapolis‘, against the
divergent usage of Alexandria and Palestine and the West.

2. His writings on the Montanist controversy were still 2.Montan-
more famous, and are recommended as an authority on the
subject by Serapion of Antioch a few years after the author’s
death®. Though later than many of his works’, they were
written soon after Montanus had divulged the extravagance of
his pretensions and before Montanism had attained its complete
development. Ifa later notice may be trusted, Apollinaris was
not satisfied with attacking Montanism in writing, but sum-
moned at Hierapolis a council of twenty-six bishops besides

2 See below, p. 63.

2 The main point at issue was
whether the exact day of the month
should be observed, as the Quarto-
decimans maintained, irrespective of
the day of the week. The fragments of
Apollinaris (preserved in the Chron.
Pasch. p. 13) relate to a discrepancy
which some had found in the accounts
of St Matthew and St John.

3 Kusebius represents the dioceses
of ‘Asia’ and the neighbourhood, as
absolutely unanimous; H. EF. v. 23 rfjs
"Alas awrdons al mapoxta, Vv. 24 Tis
*Aclas rdons dua rats dudpors éxkAnolas
Tas mapoixlas. ‘Asia’ includes all this
district, as appears from Polyerates, ib.

* See Polycrates of Ephesus in
Euseb. H. E. v. 24.

5 In Euseb. H. E. v. 19.

6 Husebius (H. EH. iv. 27) at the
close of his list of the works of Apol-
linaris gives cal d wera raira ov-
éypaye xatd ris [rwv] Bpvydv aipé-
gews per o8 Toddy Kaworounbelons
xpivov, tite ye pi worep éexdiew dp-
xouévns, rt TOO Movravod dua rats av-
ToU Wevdorpopiricw dpxds Ths mapex-
Tpow7s movoupéevov, i.e. the vagaries of
Montanus and his followers had al-
ready begun when Apollinaris wrote,
but Montanism assumed a new phase
shortly after.

60

His other
heresiolo-
gical writ-
ings,

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

himself, where this heresy was condemned and sentence of
excommunication pronounced against Montanus together with
his adherent the pretended prophetess Maximilla’.

Nor were his controversial writings confined to these two

topics.

In one place he refuted the Encratites*; in another he

upheld the orthodox teaching respecting the true humanity of
Christ®. It is plain that he did not confine himself to questions
especially affecting Asia Minor; but that the doctrine and the

1 Included in the Libellus Synodi-
cus published by Pappus; see Labb.
Conc. 1. 615, ed. Coleti. Though this
council is not mentioned elsewhere,
there is no sufficient ground for ques-
tioning its authenticity. The import-
ant part taken by Apollinaris against
the Montanists is recognised by EKu-
sebius H. E. v. 16, rpos T7v Aeyouevnv
Kara Ppiyas alpecw drdov loxupov Kat
dxaraydvicroy éxl rijs ‘Ieparddews Tov
*AToXtvaptov.

After mentioning the council the
compiler of this Synodicon speaks thus
of the false prophets; of kal Bracdy-
Kus, Tor Samovavres, Kabds dnow 6
auros mario [t.e. "Amodwdpros], Tov Blov
Karéorpevay, ovv avrots 5@ Karéxpive
kal Oeddorov rov oxuréa, He evidently
has before him the fragments of the
anonymous treatises quoted by Euse-
bius (H. E. v. 16), as the following
parallels taken from these fragments
show: ws éml évepyounévy cal dacpo-
vovrT...BPrAacdynmety diddoKovros Tou
drnvOadiouévov mvetuaros...rdy Brov
Kkataoctpéyat "Iovda mpoddorov dixny
--.olov émlrpordy tiva Oeddorov awodvs
alpe? Adyos...rereNeuTjxact Movrarés re
kal Oeddoros xal 4 mpoepnuevyn yuvt.
Thus he must have had before him a
text of Eusebius which omitted the
words 64 71s at the commencement, as
they are omitted in some existing
Mss (see above, p. 56, note); and ac-
cordingly he ascribed all the treatises
to Apollinaris, The parallels are

taken from the first and second trea-

tises; the first might have been written
by Apollinaris, but the second was
certainly not by his hand, as it re-
fers to much later events (see above,
p. 56).

Hefele (Conciliengeschichte 1. p. 71)
places the date of this council be-
fore a.D. 150. But if the testimony
of Eusebius is worth anything, this is
impossible; for he states that the
writings of Claudius Apollinaris a-
gainst the Montanists were later than
his Apology to M. Aurelius (see p. 59,
note 6), and this Apology was not
written till after a.p. 174 (see p. 61,
noter). The chronology of Montanism
is very perplexing, but Hefele’s dates
appear to be much too early. The
Chronicon of Eusebius gives the rise
of Montanism under A.D. 172 or 173,
and this statement is consistent with
the notices in his History. But if
this date be correct, it most probably
refers to Montanism as a distinct
system; and the fires had probably
been smouldering within the Church
for some time before they broke out.

It will be observed that the writer
of the Synodicon identifies Theodotus
the Montanist (see Euseb. H. E. v. 3)
with Theodotus the leather-seller who
was a Monarchian. - There is no au-
thority for this identification in Euse-
bius.

2 Theodoret. H. F.i. 21.

® Socr. H. E. iii. 7.

“THE CHURCHES OF THE LYOUS. 61

practice of the Church generally found in him a vigorous
advocate, who was equally opposed to the novelties of heretical
teaching and to the rigours of overstrained asceticism.

Nor again did Apollinaris restrict himself to controversies
carried on between Christian and Christian. He appears alike
as the champion of the Gospel against attacks from without,
and as the promoter of Christian life and devotion within the
pale of the Church. On the one hand he was the author of an His apolo-
apology addressed to M. Aurelius’, of a controversial treatise in wk
five books against the Greeks, and of a second in two books
against the Jews’; on the other we find mentioned among his
writings a work in two books on Truth, and a second on Piety, and di-
besides several of which the titles have not come down to us*. bane
He seems indeed to have written on almost every subject which
interested the Church of his age. He was not only well versed
in the Scriptures, but showed a wide acquaintance with secular

1 Kuseb. H. E. iv. 26, 27. He re-
ferred in this Apology to the incident
of the so-called Thundering Legion,
which happened a. p. 174; and as re-
ported by Eusebius (H. E. v. 5), he
stated that the legion was thus named
by the emperor in commemoration of
this miraculous thunderstorm. As a
contemporary however, he must pro-
bably have known that the title Legio
Fulminata existed long before; and
we may conjecture that he used some
ambiguous; expression implying that
it was fitly so named (e.g. érdvupov
Ths ouvrvxlas), which Eusebius and
later writers misunderstood ; just as
Eusebius himself (v. 24) speaks of
Irensxus as depwrupuds tis dv TH mpoon-
yopig abrg@ te TH rpbry elpyvorods. Of
the words used by Eusebius, olkelay rg
yeyovérs wpds Tod Bacitéws eldndévar

‘mpoonyoplay, we may suspect that ol-

kelay TQ yeyovbrt mpocnyoplay is an ex-

pression borrowed from Apollinaris

himself, while wxpds rod Bacihéws eldn-
gévae gives Eusebius’ own erroneous

interpretation of his author’s mean-
ing. :

The name of this legion was Ful-
minata, not Fulminatriz, as it is often
carelessly written out, where the in-
scriptions have merely rvLM.; see
Becker and Marquardt Rim, Alterth.
III. 2, Pp. 353-

2 The words xal wpds "Iovdalous wpd-
Tov kal devrepov are omitted in some
mss and by Rufinus. They are found
however in the very ancient Syriac
version, and are doubtless genuine.
Their omission is due to the homeote-
Ieuton, as they are immediately pre-
ceded by xat rep Senet? mpa@rov Kal
dedrepov.

3 A list of his works is given by
Eusebius (H. E. iv. 27), who explains
that there were many others which
he had not seen. This list omits the
work on the Paschal Feast, which is
quoted in the Chronicon Paschale
p. 13 (ed. Dind.), and the treatise on
Piety, of which we know from Photius
Bibl. 14.

62 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

literature also’. His style is praised by a competent judge’,
and his orthodoxy was such as to satisfy the dogmatic precision
of the post-Nicene age’®. :

These facts are not unimportant in their bearing on. the
question which has already been discussed in relation to Papias.
Important If there had been such.a discontinuity of doctrine and practice
Neue eoe in the Church of Hierapolis as the theory in question assumes,
ane of uf the Pauline Gospel was repudiated in the later years of the
ee first century and rank Judaism adopted in its stead, how can
we explain the position of Apollinaris? Obviously a counter-
revolution must have taken place, which undid the effects of
the former. One dislocation must have been compensated by
another. And yet Irenzus knows nothing of these religious con-
vulsions which must have shaken the doctrine of the Church to
its foundations, but represents. the tradition as one, continuous,
unbroken, reaching back through the elders of the Asiatic
Churches, through Papias and Polycarp, to St John himself—
Irenzus who received his Christian education in Asia Minor,
who throughout life was in communication with the churches
there, and who had already reached middle age when this second
revolution is supposed to have occurred. The demands on
our credulity, which this theory makes, are enormous. And
its improbability becomes only the more glaring, as we extend
Solidarity our view. For the solidarity of the Church is the one striking
aa ., fact unmistakably revealed to us, as here and there the veil
eo. which shrouds the history of the second century is lifted.
_ Anicetus and Soter and Eleutherus and Victor at Rome,
Pantznus and Clement at Alexandria, Polycrates at Ephesus,
‘Papias and Apollinaris at Hierapolis, Polycarp at Smyrna,
Melito at Sardis, Ignatius and Serapion at Antioch, Primus and
Dionysius at Corinth, Pothinus and Irenzus in Gaul, Philippus
1 Theodoret. Her. Fab. iii. 2 dvip fane literature. |
décérawos kal rpds TH yrwoe Tw Oelwy 2 Photius lc., déiddoyos dé 6 dxhp

kal thy twlev wadelay mpocerdnpds. Kal ppdoe diordyy Kexpnudvos.
So too Jerome, Ep. 7o (1. p. 428, ed. 3 Euseb. H. E. iv. 21, Jerome 1, «.,

Vallarsi), names him among those who Theodoret.1¢., Socr. H. H. iii, 7.
were equally versed in sacred and pro-

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 63

and Pinytus in Crete, Hegesippus and Narcissus in Palestine,

all are bound together by the ties of a common organization and

the sympathy of a common creed. The Paschal controversy

is especially valuable, as showing the limits of divergence
consistent with the unity of the Church. The study of this
controversy teaches us to appreciate with ever-increasing force

the pregnant saying of Irenzus that the difference of the usage
establishes the harmony of the faith’,

Though Laodicea cannot show the same intellectual activity ier

as Hierapolis, yet in practical energy she is not wanting.

One of those fitful persecutions, which sullied the rule of Martyr.
the imperial Stoic, deprived Laodicea of her bishop Sagaris’. gagaris
The exact date of his martyrdom is not known; but we cannot ° 4? !65
be far wrong in assigning it to an early year in the reign of |

M. Aurelius*, His name appears to have been held in great
honour‘, :
But while the Church of Rhadtebd was thus contending Outbreak
against foes without, she was also torn asunder by feuds within. ae ding
Coincident with the martyrdom of Sagaris was the outburst of *°VeY-
the Paschal controversy, of which mention has been already )
made, and which for more than a century and a half disturbed
the peace of the Church, until it was finally laid at rest by the

1 Tren. in Euseb. H. E. v. 24 7 dia-
guvia ris vnorelas (the fast which pre-
ceded the Paschal festival) rv éudvoray
THs wicrews cuviornot.

2 Melito in Euseb. H. E. iv. 26 émi
ZepourdrNlov IlavAov advOurdrov ijs
*Aclas, @ Zdyapis KaipgG euapripycer,
eyévero SHrnows woddn év Aaodixela
wept Tov macxa éumecdvros Kard Katpov
év éxelvaus Tals Hucpats, kal éypagy raira
(i.e. Melito’s own treatise on the
Paschal festival).

3 The proconsulate of Paullus, under
whom this martyrdom took place, is
dated by Borghesi (Guwvres vir, p. 507)
somewhere between A.D. 163—168; by
Waddington (Fastes des Provinces Asia-
tiques p. 731, in Le Bas and Wadding-
ton Voyage Archéologique ete.) probably

A.D. 164—166. This rests on the as-
sumption that the Servillius Paullus
here named must be identified with L.
Sergius Paullus of the inscriptions.
The name Sergius is elsewhere con-
founded with Servius (Servillius) (see
Borghesi rv. p. 493, VIII. p. 504,
Mommsen Rim. Forsch. 1. p. 8, Ephem,
Epigr. 1. p. 338.). The mistake must
have been introduced very early into
the text of Eusebius. All the Greek mss

have Servillius (Servilius), and so it is

given in the Syriac Version. Ruffinus
however writes it correctly Sergius.

* Besides Melito (1. ¢.), Polycrates of
Ephesus refers to him with respect;
Euseb. H. EZ. v. 24, rl d& det réyew
Zdyapw érlicxorov Kal pdprupa, ds év
Aaodixeig Kexolunrat.

Pe TS 2S ge OW a9 Ty .
SSeS :

ane

‘64 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

Council of Nicwa. The Laodiceans would naturally regulate
their festival by the Asiatic or Quartodeciman usage, strictly
observing the day of the month and disregarding the day of
the week. But a great commercial centre like Laodicea must
have attracted large crowds of foreign Christians from Palestine
or Egypt or Rome or Gaul, who were accustomed to commemo-
rate the Passion always on a Friday and the Resurrection on
a Sunday according to the western practice; and in this way
probably the dispute arose. The treatise on the Paschal
Festival by Melito of Sardis was written on this occasion to
defend the Asiatic practice. The fact that Laodicea became
the head-quarters of the controversy is a speaking testimony
to the prominence of this Church in the latter half of the
second century.
Hierapolis Ata later date the influence of both Hierapolis and Laodicea
nee im has sensibly declined. In the great controversies of the fourth
nai, and fifth centuries they take no conspicuous part. Among their
bishops there is not one who has left his mark on history. And
yet their names appear at most of the great Councils, in which
The Arian they bear a silent part. At Nicza Hierapolis was represented
al by Flaccus’, Laodicea by Nunechius*. They both acquiesced
“-?- 375+ in its decrees, and the latter as metropolitan published them
throughout the Phrygian Churches*, Soon after, both sees
Philippo- lapsed into Arianism. At the synod of Philippopolis, com-
eae 47. posed of bishops who had seceded from the Council of Sardica,
the representatives of these two sees were present and joined
in the condemnation of the Athanasians. On this occasion
Hierapolis was still represented by Flaccus, who had thus turned
traitor to his former faith*. On the other hand Laodicea had
changed its bishop twice meanwhile. Cecropius had won the

1 Labb. Cone. 11. 57, 62, ed. Coleti; 2 Labb. Cone. 11. 57, 62; Cowper’s
Cowper’s Syriac Miscellanies p. 11, 28. Syriac Miscellanies pp. 11, 28, 34. He
It is remarkable that after Papias had also been present at the Synod
all the early bishops of Hierapolis of Ancyra held about a.p. 314 (see
of whom we hear have Roman names; Galatians p. 34); ib. p. 41.

Avircius Marcellus (?), Claudius Apolli- 3 Labb. Conc. 1. 236.
naris, Flaccus, Lucius, Venantius. 4 ib. 744.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

imperial favour by his abuse of the orthodox party, and was first

promoted to Laodicea, whence he was translated to Nicomedia’.

He was succeeded by Nonnius, who signed the Arian decree at
Philippopolis*, When these sees recovered their orthodoxy we
do not know; but it is perhaps a significant fact, that neither [Consran-

65

TINOPLE,

is ropaneaiiia at the second general Council, held at Constan- 4». 381.]

tinople (A.D. 381)*.

At the third general Council, which met The Nes-

torian and

at Ephesus, Laodicea is represented by Aristonicus, Hierapolis gutychian

by Venantius*. Both bishops sign the decrees condemning
Again in the next Christological controversy which 4». 43.

Nestorius.

agitated the Church the two sees bear their part.

At the

heresies.
S EPHEsts.

notorious Robbers’ Synod, held also at Ephesus, Laodicea was Latrocin-
represented by another Nunechius, Hierapolis by Stephanus. sp 449
Both bishops committed themselves to the policy of Dioscorus

and the opinions of the heretic Eutyches*.

Yet with the fickle-

ness which characterized these sees at an earlier date during
the Arian controversy, we find their representatives two years
later at the Council of Chalcedon siding with the orthodox nig
party and condemning the Eutychian heresy which they had an. 4sr.

? Athanas. ad Episc. Zigypt. 8 (Op.
I. p. 210), Hist. Arian. ad Mon. 74
(ib. p. 307).

2 Labb. Cone. 1. 744.

2 Cowper’s Syriac Miscell. p. 39.

* Labb. Cone. m1. 1085, 1222, Mans.
Cone. tv. 1367. The name of this
bishop of Hierapolis is variously writ-
ten, but Venantius seems to be the
true orthography. For some unex-
plained reason, though present in
person, he signs by deputy. He had
before subscribed the protest to Cyril
against commencing the proceedings
before the arrival of John of Antioch
(Mans. Conc. v. 767), and perhaps his
acquiescence in the decisions of the
Council was not very hearty.

5 Labb. Cone. tv. 892, 925, 928,
1107, 1170, 1171, 1185. In the Acts
of this heretical council, as occasion-

COL,

ally in those of the Council of Chal-
cedon, Laodicea is surnamed Trimi-
taria (see above, p. 18, note 2). Fol-
lowing Le Quien (Or. Christ. 1. p. 838),
I have assumed the Stephanus who
was present at the Latrocinium to
have been bishop of the Phrygian
Hierapolis, though I have not found
any decisive indication which Hie-
rapolis is meant. On the other hand
the bishop of the Syrian Hierapolis
at this time certainly bore the name
Stephanus (Labb. Cone. tv. 727, 1506,
[1550], 1644, 1836, v. 46); and the
synod held under Stephanus a.p. 445,
which Wiltsch (Geography and Statis-
tics of the Church 1. p. 170, Eng.
Trans.) assigns to our Hierapolis,
belongs to the Syrian city of the same

name, as the connexion with Perrha.

shews: Labb. Conc. Iv. 727, 1644.

5

66

Later
vacillation
of these
sees.

Their com-
parative
unimpor-
tance,

CouNcIn
oF Laopti-
CEA an eX-
ception.

1746, 1751.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

so lately supported*. Nunechius is still bishop of Laodicea,
and reverses his former vote. Stephanus has been succeeded
at Hierapolis by Abercius, whose orthodoxy, so far as we know,
had not been compromised by any previous expression of opinion’.

The history of these churches at a later date is such as
might have been anticipated from their attitude during the
period of the first Four General Councils. The sees of Laodicea
and Hierapolis, one or both, are represented at all the more
important assemblies of the Church; and the same vacillation
and infirmity of purpose, which had characterized their holders
in the earlier councils, marks the proceedings of their later
successors *.

But, though the two sees thus continue to bear witness to
their existence by the repeated presence of their occupants at
councils and synods, yet tbe real influence of Laodicea and
Hierapolis on the Church at large has terminated with the
close of the second century. On one occasion only did either
community assume a position of prominence, About the middle
of the fourth century a council was held at Laodicea*, It

1 Tabb. Cone. tv. 853, 862, 1195, held earlier than the year 344, as the
1204, 1241, 1312, 1337, 1383, 1392, 7th canon makes mention of the Pho-
1444, 1445, 1463, 1480, 1481, 1496, tinians, and Photinus did not attract
1501, 1505, 1716, 1732, 1736, 1744, notice before that year: see Hefele,

Conciliengesch. 1. p. 722 sq. In the
ancient lists of Councils it stands after
that of Antioch (4.p. 341), and before

2 The bishops of both sees are
addressed by the Emperor Leo in

his letter respecting the Council of
Chalcedon: but their replies are not
preserved. Nunechius is still bishop
of Laodicea; but Hierapolis has again
changed hands, and Philippus has

succeeded Abercius (Labb. Conc. tv.
1836 sq.). Nunechius of Laodicea was

one of those who signed the decree
against simony at the Council of Con-
stantinople (A.D. 459): Conc. Vv. 50.

3 See for instance the tergiversa-
tion of Theodorus of Laodicea and Ig-
natius of Hierapolis in the matter of
Photius and the 8th General Council.

¢ This council cannot have been

that of Constantinople (A.D. 381).
Dr Westcott (History of the Canon
p. 400) is inclined to place it about
A.D. 363, and this is the time very
generally adopted.

Here however a difficulty presents
itself, which has not been noticed
hitherto. In the Syriac ms Brit. Mus.
Add. 14,528, are lists of the bishops
present at the earlier councils, includ-
ing Laodicea (see Wright’s Catalogue of
the Syriac MSS in the British Museum,
DCCCVI, p. 1030 8q.). These lists have
been published by Cowper (Syriac
Miscell. p. 42 sq., Analecta Nicena

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. 67

was convened more especially to settle some points of ecclesi- Its decree

astical discipline; but incidentally the assembled bishops were oe

led to make an order respecting the Canon of Scripture’, As

p- 36), who however has transposed
the lists of Antioch and Laodicea, so
that he ascribes to the Antiochian
Synod the names which really belong
to the Laodicean. This is determined
(as I am informed by Prof. Wright)
‘by the position of the lists.

The Laodicean list then, which seems
to be imperfect, contains twentynames;
and, when examined, it yields these re-
sults. (zx) At least three-fourths of the
names can be identified with bishops
who sat at Nicwa, and probably the
exceptions would be fewer, if in some
cases they had not been obscured by
transcription into Syriac and by the
errors of copyists. (2) When identi-
fied, they are found to belong in almost
every instance to Celesyria, Phcenicia,
Palestine, Cilicia, and Isauria, whereas
apparently not one comesfrom Phrygia,
Lydia, or the other western districts
of Asia Minor.

Supposing that this is a genuine
Laodicean list, we are led by the first
result to place it as near in time as
possible to the Council of Nicwa;
and by the second to question whether
after all the Syrian Laodicea may not
have been meant instead of the Phry-
gian. On the other hand tradition is
unanimous in placing this synod in
the Phrygian town, and in this very
Syriac ms the heading of the canons
begins ‘Of the Synod of Laodicea of
Phrygia.” On the whole it appears
probable that this supposed list of
bishops who met at Laodicea belongs
to some other Council. The Laodicean
Synod seems to have been, as Dr
Westcott describes it (1. ¢.), ‘A small
gathering of clergy from parts of
Lydia and Phrygia.’

In a large mosaic work in the Church

at Bethlehem, in which all the more
important councils are represented,
we find the following inscription ; [‘H]
dyla ovvodos 7 év Aaodixela rijs Dpvylas
Twv Ke émicxdtav yéyovev dia Movravov
ké [r]a{s] Aourds épécecs* rov[rovs] ws
alperixods Kal éxOpos ris ddeOelas F
Gyla civodos dvePeudricey (Ciampini de
Sacr. Aidif. a Constant. constr. p. 156;
comp. Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 8953).
The mention of Montanus mighi sug-
gest that this was one of those Asiatic
synods held against Montanism at
the end of the second or beginning of
the third century. But no record of
any such synod is preserved elsewhere,
and, as all the other Councils com-
memorated in these mosaics are found
in the list sanctioned by the Quini-
sextine Council, this can hardly have
been an exception. The inscription
must therefore refer to the well-known
Council of Laodicea in the fourth cen-
tury, which received this sanction.
The description however is not very
correct, for though Montanism is inci-
dentally condemned in the eighth
canon, yet this condemnation was not
the main object of the council and oc-
cupies a very subordinate place. The
Bethlehem mosaics were completed
A.D. 1169: see Boeckh C. I. 8736.

1 The canons of this Council,
59 in number, will be found in Labb.
Cone. 1, 1530 8q., ed. Coleti, The last
of these forbids the reading of any
but ‘the Canonical books of the New
and Old Testament.’ To this is often
appended (sometimes as a 6oth canon)
a list of the Canonical books; but
Dr Westcott has shown that this list
is a later addition and does not
belong to the original decrees of the
council (Canon p. 400 sq.).

5—2

68 THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

this was the first occasion in which the subject had been
brought formally before the notice of an ecclesiastical assembly,
this Council of Laodicea secured a notoriety which it would not
otherwise have obtained, and to which it was hardly entitled
by its constitution or its proceedings. Its decrees were con-
firmed and adopted by later councils both in the Hast and in
the West’.
More important however for my special purpose, than the
the Bois influence of this synod on the Church at large, is the light
pee which its canons throw on the heretical tendencies of this
sians. district, and on the warnings of St Paul in the Colossian
Epistle. To illustrate this fact it will only be necessary to
write out some of these canons at length:

29. ‘Itis not right for Christians to Judaize and abstain
from labour on the sabbath, but to work on this same day.
They should pay respect rather to the Lord’s day, and, if
possible, abstain from labour on it as Christians. But if they
should be found Judaizers, let them be anathema in the sight
of Christ.’ |

35. ‘It is not right for Christians to abandon the Church
of God and go away and invoke angels (dyyéAous évoucteww)*

Its decrees

Col. ii. 14,
16,475

Col. ii, 18.

1 By the Quinisextine Council (a.p.
692) in the East (Labb. Conc. vu.
1345), and by the Synod of Aix-la-
Chapelle (a.p. 789) in the West (Conc.
IX. 10 8q.).

2 Theodoret about a century after
the Laodicean Council, commenting on
Col, ii. 18, states that this disease
(ré mdOos) which St Paul denounces
‘long remained in Phrygia and Pi-
sidia.? ‘For this reason also,’ he
adds, *& synod convened in Lao-
dicea of Phrygia forbad by a decree
the offering prayer to angels; and
even to the present time oratories of
the holy Michael may be seen among
them and their neighbours.’ See
also below p. 70, note 3. A curi-
ous inscription, found in the theatre

at Miletus (Boeckh C. I. 2895), illus-
trates this tendency. It is written
in seven columns, each having a dif-
ferent planetary symbol, and a dii-
ferent permutation of the vowels with
the same invocation, apie. MYAATON.

THN « TIOAIN . MIAHCIOON . Kal .
TIANTAC * TOYC . KATOIKOYNTAC,
while at the common base is written
APYarPEAO! . PYAACCETAI . H . TTO-

Alc . MIAHCIOON . Kal. TIANTEC. Ol.
KAT... Boeckh writes, ‘Etsi hic
titulus Gnosticorum et Basilidianorum
commentis prorsus congruus est, ta-
men potuit ab ethnicis Milesiis scrip-
tus esse; quare nolui eum inter Chris-
tianos rejicere, quum presertim pub-

lice Milesiorum superstitionis docu.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS. ~ 69

and hold conventicles (cvva&ess qoiiv); for these things are
forbidden. If therefore any one is found devoting himself
to this secret idolatry, let him be anathema, because he aban-
doned our Lord Jesus Christ and went after idolatry.’

36. ‘It is not right for priests or clergy to be magicians
or enchanters or mathematicians or astrologers’, or to make
safeguards (puvAaxtnpia) as they are called, for such things are
prisons (Secuwt7jpia) of their souls*: and we have enjoined
that they which wear them be cast out of the Church.’

37. ‘It is not right to receive from Jews or heretics the.
festive offerings which they send about, nor to join in their
festivals,’

38. ‘It is not right to receive unleavened bread from the
Jews or to participate in their impieties.’ |

It is strange, at this late date, to find still lingering in
these churches the same readiness to be ‘judged in respect
of an holiday or a new moon or a sabbath, with the same
tendency to relinquish the hold of the Head and to substitute
‘a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,’ which three
centuries before had called forth the Apostle’s rebuke and
warning in the Epistle to the Colossians.

During the flourishing period of the Eastern Church, Lao- reclesias-
dicea appears as the metropolis of the province of Phrygia tics!status
Pacatiana, counting among its suffragan bishoprics the see of Hiecano :
Colosse*. On the other hand Hierapolis, though only six lis.
miles distant, belonged to the neighbouring province of Phrygia
Salutaris *, whose metropolis was Synnada, and of which it was

mentum insigne sit.” The idea of arixol is used in this decree in its

the seven é&y:o, combined in the one
dpxayyedos, seems certainly to point
to Jewish, if not Christian, influences:
Rev. i. 4, iii. 1, iv. 5, v. 6.

1 Though there is no direct men-
tion of ‘magic’ in the letter to the
Colossians, yet it was a characteristic
tendency of this part of Asia: Acts
xix. 19, 2 Tim. iii. 8, 13. See the
note on Gal. v. 20. The term paén-

ordinary sense of astrologers, sooth-
sayers. ~~

2 A play on the double sense of ¢v-
Aaxrhpiov (1) a safeguard or amulet,
(2) a guard-house.

3 A list of the bishoprics belonging
to this province at the time of the
Council of Chalcedon is given, Labb.
Cone, Iv. 1501, 1716.

* Cone. tv. 1716, 1744.

70

Obscurity
of Colossz.

It is sup-
planted by
Chone.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

one of the most important sees. The stream of the Lycus
seems to have formed the boundary line between the two
ecclesiastical provinces. At a later date Hierapolis itself was
raised to metropolitan rank’.

But while Laodicea and Hierapolis held the foremost place
in the records of the early Church, and continued to bear an
active, though inconspicuous part, in later Christian history,
Colossse was from the very first a cipher. The town itself, as
we have seen, was already waning in importance, when the
Apostle wrote; and its subsequent decline seems to have been
rapid. Not a single event in Christian history is connected
with its name; and its very existence is only rescued from
oblivion, when at long intervals some bishop of Colossz at-
taches his signature to the decree of an ecclesiastical synod.
The city ceased to strike coins in the reign of Gordian (A.D.
238—244)*. It fell gradually into decay, being supplanted by
the neighbouring town Chone, the modern Chonos, so called
from the natural funnels by which the streams here disappear

in underground channels formed by the incrustations of traver-

tine °,

1 At the 5th and 6th General Coun-
cils (A.D. 553 and 4.D. 680) Hierapolis
is styled a metropolis (Labb. Cone. v1.
220, VII. 1068, 1097, 1117); and in the
latter case it is designated metropolis
of Phrygia Pacatiana, though this
same designation is still given to Lao-
dicea. Synnada retains its position
as metropolis of Phrygia Salutaris,

From this time forward Hierapolis
seems always to hold metropolitan
rank. But no notice is preserved of
the circumstances under which the
change was made. In the Notitie it
generally occurs twice—first as a suf-
fragan see of Phrygia Salutaris, and
secondly as metropolis of another
Phrygia Pacatiana (distinct from that
which has Laodicea for its metropolis) :
Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notitie (ed.
Parthey) Not. 1, pp. 56, 57, 69, 733

We may conjecture also that its ruin was hastened by

Not..3, Ppotla,-1243. NOt. -7, pp: 154;
161; Not. 8, pp. 164, 176, 180; Not.
9, Pp- 193, 197; Not. 10, pp. 212, 220.
In this latter position it is placed
quite out of the proper geographical
order, thus showing that its metro-
politan jurisdiction was created com-
paratively late. The number of dioceses
in the province is generally given as
9; Nilus ib. p. 301. The name of the
province is variously corrupted from
Ilaxariavjs, e.g. Karmariavfjs, Karma-
Soxtas. Unless the ecclesiastical posi-
tion of Hierapolis was altogether ano-
malous, as a province within a pro-
vince, its double mention in the No-
titie must be explained by a confusion
of its earlier and later status.

2 See Mionnet rv. p. 269, Leake
Numism. Hellen. p. 45.

3 Joannes Curopalata p. 686 (ed.

a SS a aa

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

a renewed assault of its ancient enemy, the earthquake’, It is
commonly said that Chonz is built on the site of the ancient
Colosse ; but the later town stands at some distance from the

Bonn.) d7un ... rods Tovpkous drayyén-
Aovoa thy év Xdvats wodirelav kal adrdv
Tov mepiBdnrov év Oavuacr kal dva%-
Hact TOD dpxvorpariyou vaov karahaBely
év paxalpg... kal to Oh oxeTALWTEpor,
poe Tas TOD xdoparos onpayyas év @rrep
ol rapappéovres torapol éxeice Xwvevd-
fevot ia THs To’ apxXLoTpaTHyou: Ta-
Aatds émidnulas Kal Ocornulas ws did
mpavods dorarotv Td pevua Kal didy
evdpouoiv Exovot, Tos KaTamepevydras
Siarnphoa, K.T.d.

The ‘ worship of angels’ is curiously
connected with the physical features
of the country in the legend to which
Curopalata refers, The people were in
imminent danger from a sudden inun-
dation of the Lycus, when the arch-
angel Michael appeared and opened a
chasm in the earth through which the
waters flowed away harmlessly: Hart-
ley’s Researches in Greece p. 53. See
another legend, or another version of
the legend, in which the archangel
interposes, in Laborde p. 103.

It was the birthplace of Nicetas
Choniates, one of the most important
of the Byzantine historians, who thus
speaks of it (de Manuel. vi. 2, p. 230,
ed. Bonn.); Spuylay re xai Aaodixecay
OreAOaw ddixvetrar és Xdvas, modu evd-
daluova Kal meyddnv, mada Tas Kodac-
ods, THv éuov Tod ovyypadéws trarpida,
kal Tov dpxaryyeduxdy vady elovdw meyébe
Méyiorov kal Kader KadCTOV dvTa Kal
Oavpacias xeupds dmavra epyov x.T.d.,
where @ corrupt reading Iladacods for
Kodaoods had misled some. It will be
remembered that the words médw
evdaluova kal weyadnv are borrowed from
Xenophon’s description of Colossm
(Anab. i. 2. 6): see above, p. 15, note 3.

He again alludes to his native place,
de Isaac. ii, 2, pp. 52, 3 rods Aaodixe?s

dé Ppvyas wupiaxGs éxdkwoev, Gomwep kat
Tovs Tov Xwvav Tov éwoyv olkyjropas, and
Urbs Capta 16, p. 842, 7d dé iv éuov
ro0 cvyypadéws Nuxfra warpls ai Xavae
kal ayxiréppwv Tavry Ppvyixn Aaodl-
Kela.

1 We may conjecture that it was the
disastrous earthquake under Gallienus
(A.D. 262) which proved fatal to Colos-
se (see above p. 38, note 1). This is
consistent with the fact above men-
tioned that no Colossian coins later
than Gordian are extant. We read
indeed of an earthquake in the reign
of Gordian himself ‘eo usque gravis ut
civitates etiam terre hiatu deperirent’
(Capitol. Vit. Gord. 26), but we are not
informed of. the localities affected by
it. When St Chrysostom wrote, the
city existed no longer, as may be in-
ferred from his comment (x1. p. 323)
‘H modus ris Ppvyias Fv* Kal dHrov éx
Tov THv Aaodixeay mryolov elvat.

On the other hand M. Renan
(L’Antechrist p. 99) says of the earth-
quake under Nero, ‘ Colosses ne sut se
relever; elle disparut presque du
nombre des églises’; and he adds in a
note ‘Colosses n’a pas de monnaies

‘impériales [Waddington].’ For this

statement there is, I believe, no au-
thority ; and as regards the coins it is
certainly wrong.

Earthquakes have been largely in-
strumental in changing the sites of
cities situated within the range of
their influence. Of this we have an
instance in the neighbourhood of
Colosse. Hamilton (1. p. 514) reports
that an earthquake which occurred at
Denizli about a hundred years ago
caused the inhabitants to remove their
residences to a different locality, where
they have remained ever since.

71

a

Turkish
conquest.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS,

earlier, as Salisbury does from Old Sarum. The episcopal
see necessarily followed the population; though for some time
after its removal to the new town the bishop still continued
to use the older title, with or without the addition of Chonez
by way of explanation, till at length the name of this primitive

Apostolic Church passes wholly out of sight’.
The Turkish conquest pressed with more than common

severity on these districts.

the Church was taken by surprise.

When the day of visitation came,

Occupied with ignoble

quarrels and selfish interests, she had no ear for the voice of

Him who demanded admission.
The long-impending doom overtook

the knock unheeded.

The door was barred and

her, and the golden candlestick was removed for ever from

the Eternal Presence?

1 At the Council of Chalcedon (a.p.
451) Nunechius of Laodicea subscribes
‘for the absent bishops under him,’
among whom is mentioned ’Emd@avlov
wodews KoXagoav (Labb. Cone, tv. 1501,
ed, Coleti; comp. 7b. 1745). At the
Quinisextine Council (A.p. 692) occurs
the signature of Koouads émicxoros md-
Aews Koragcafs (sic) Taxariavns (Conc.
vir. 1408). At the 2nd Council of
Nicea (4.D. 787) the name of the see
is in a transition state; the bishop
Theodosius (or Dositheus) signs him-
self sometimes Xwyay ro Kodacouv,
sometimes Xwyav simply (Cone. vit.

689, 796, 988, 1200, 1222, 1357, 1378,
1432, 1523, 1533, in many of which
passages the word Xwvdy is grossly
corrupted), At later Councils the see
is called XGvac; and this is the name
which it bears in the Notitie (pp. 97,
127, 199, 222, 303, ed. Parthey).

2 For the remains of Christian
churches at Laodicea see Fellows Asia
Minor p. 282, Pococke p. 74. A de-
scription of three fine churches at
Hierapolis is given in Fergusson’s JI-
lustrated Handbook of Architecture 11.
Pp. 967 sq.; comp, Texier Asie Mineure
I. Pe. 143.

Il.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

Ae the language of St Paul, addressed to the Church Two ele-
of Colosse, we may infer the presence of two disturbing jn tae
elements which threatened the purity of Christian faith and foe
practice in this community. These elements are distinguish-
able in themselves, though it does not follow that they present

the teaching of two distinct parties.

1. A mere glance at the epistle suffices to detect the r. Jupatc.

presence of JUDAISM in the teaching which the Apostle com-

bats. The observance of sabbaths and new moons is decisive
in this respect. The distinction of meats and drinks points in
the same direction’, Even the enforcement of the initiatory
rite of Judaism may be inferred from the contrast implied in
St Paul’s recommendation of the spiritual circumcision *.

2. On the other hand a closer examination of its language 2. Gyos-
shows that these Judaic features do not exhaust the portrai- ~~
ture of the heresy or heresies against which the epistle is
directed. We discern an element of theosophic speculation,
which is alien to the spirit of Judaism proper. We are con-
fronted with a shadowy mysticism, which loses itself m the
contemplation of the unseen world. We discover a tendency
to interpose certain spiritual agencies, intermediate beings,
between God and man, as the instruments of communication
and the objects of worship*, Anticipating the result which
will appear more clearly hereafter, we may say that along

1 Col. ii. 16, 17, 31 8q. 3 ji. 22. 3 ii. 4, 8, 18, 23.

74

Are these
combined
or sepa-
rate?

General
--reasons for
supposing
one heresy
only, in

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

with its Judaism there was a GNosTic element in the false
teaching which prevailed at Colosse.

Have we then two heresies here, or one only? Were
these elements distinct, or were they fused into the same

system ?

In other words, Is St Paul controverting a phase

of Judaism on the one hand, and a phase of Gnosticism on
the other; or did he find himself in conflict with a Judzo-
Gnostic heresy which combined the two’?

On closer examination we find ourselves compelled to

adopt the latter alternative.

The epistle itself contains no

hint that the Apostle has more than one set of antagonists

whichthey in view; and the needless multiplication of persons or events

are fused.

is always to be deprecated in historical criticism. Nor indeed
does the hypothesis of a single complex heresy present any

1 The Colossian heresy has been
made the subject of special disserta-
tions by ScHNECKENBURGER Beitrdge
zur Hinleitung ins N. T. (Stuttgart
1832), and Ueber das Alter der jiidischen
Proselyten-Taufe, nebst einer Beilage
tiber die Irrlehrer zu Colossé (Berlin
1828); by OstanpER Ueber die Colos-
sischen Irrlehrer (Tiibinger Zeitschrift
for 1834, 111. p. 96 sq.); and by RueErn-
waLD De Pseudodoctoribus Colossensibus
(Bonn 1834). But more valuable con-
tributions to the subject will often be
found in introductions to the com-
mentaries on the epistle. Those of
BuireEex, Davies, Mryer, OLSHAUSEN,
SrriczR, and Dre WeETTE may be
mentioned. Among other works which
may be consulted are Baur Der Apos-
tel Paulus p. 417 8q.; BorHMER
Isagoge in Epistolam ad Colossenses,
Berlin 1829, p. 56 8q., p- 277 8q.;
Burton Inquiry into the Heresies of
the Apostolic Age, Lectures Iv, Vv;
Ewaup Die Sendschreiben des Apostels
Paulus p. 462 sq.; HiLcEnre.p
Der Gnosticismus u. das Neue Testa-
ment in the Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.

Theol. x1. p. 233 8q.3 R. A. Lip-
sius in Schenkels Bibel-Lezicon, 8. v.
Gnosis; Mayernorr Der Brief an
die Colosser p. 107 sq.; NEANDER
Planting of the Christian Church 1.
p. 319 sq. (Eng. Trans.); Prus-
sensE Trois Premiers Sidcles 1. p-
194 8q.; Srorr Opuscula 11. p. 149
sq.; Turersco Die Kirche im Apos-
tolischen Zeitalter p. 146 sq. Of all
the accounts of these Colossian false
teachers, I have found none more
satisfactory than that of Neander,
whose opinions are followed in the
main by the most sober of later
writers.

In the investigation which follows I
have assumed that the Colossian false
teachers were Christians in some sense.
The views maintained by some earlier
critics, who regarded them as (1) Jews,
or (2) Greek philosophers, or (3) Chal-
dean magi, have found no favour and
do not need serious consideration. See
Meyer’s introduction for an enumera-
tion of such views. A refutation of
them will be found in Bleek’s Vor-
lesungen p. 12 8q.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 75.

real difficulty. If the two elements seem irreconcilable, or at
least incongruous, at first sight, the incongruity disappears on
further examination. It will be shown in the course of this
investigation, that some special tendencies of religious thought
among the Jews themselves before and about this time pre-
pared the way for such a combination in a Christian community
like the Church of Colosse*. Moreover we shall find that the
Christian heresies of the next succeeding ages exhibit in a more
developed form the same complex type, which here appears in
its nascent state’; this later development not only showing
that the combination was historically possible in itself, but
likewise presupposing some earlier stage of its existence such
as confronts us at Colosse.

But in fact the Apostle’s language hardly leaves the ques- 8. Paul’s
. . - language
tion open. The two elements are so closely interwoven 1N jg gocisive
his refutation, that it is impossible to separate them. He beams
passes backwards and forwards from the one to the other
in such a way as to show that they are only parts of one
complex whole. On this point the logical connexion of the
sentences is decisive: ‘Beware lest any man make spoil of
you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of
men, after the rudiments of the world...Ye were circumcised
with a circumcision not made with hands...And you...did He
quicken,...blotting out the handwriting of ordinances which
was against you...Let no man therefore judge you in meat
or drink, or in respect of a holy day or a new moon or a
sabbath...Let no man beguile you of your prize in a self-
imposed humility and service of angels...If ye died with Christ
from the rudiments of the world, why...are ye subject to
ordinances...which things have a show of wisdom in self-
imposed service and humility and hard treatment of the body,
but are of no value against indulgence of the flesh*? Here

1 See below, p. 83 sq. elements. He argues that ‘these two
2 See below, p. 107 8q. tendencies are related to one another
ticismus etc. p. 250 8q.) contends stre- in the way of allowing the author after

i
|
i 3 Col. ii. 8—23. Hilgenfeld(DerGnos- _as fire and water, and nothing stands
f.
;
q nuously for the separation of the two the first side-glance at the Gnostics to
;

76

Gnostic-
ism must
be defined
and de-
scribed.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

the superior wisdom, the speculative element which is charac-
teristic of Gnosticism, and the ritual observance, the practical
element which was supplied by Judaism, are regarded not
only as springing from the same stem, but also as inter-
twined in their growth. And the more carefully we examine
the sequence of the Apostle’s thoughts, the more intimate will
the connexion appear.

Having described the speculative element in this complex
heresy provisionally as Gnostic, I purpose enquiring in the
first place, how far Judaism prior to and independently of
Christianity had allied itself with Gnostic modes of thought;
and afterwards, whether the description of the Colossian heresy
is such as to justify us in thus classing it as a species of
Gnosticism. But, as a preliminary to these enquiries, some de-
finition of the word, or at least some conception of the leading
ideas which it involves, will be necessary. With its complex
varieties and elaborate developments we have no concern here:
for, if Gnosticism can be found at all in the records of the

pass over with ver. 11 to the Judaizers,
with whom Col. ii. 16 sq. is exclusively
concerned.’ He supposes therefore
that ii. 8—1o refers to ‘ pure Gnostics,’
and il. 16—23 to ‘pure Judaizers.’
To this it is sufficient to answer (1)
That, if the two elements be so an-
tagonistic, they managed nevertheless
to reconcile their differences; for we
find them united in several Judzo-
Gnostic heresies in the first half of
the second century, fwwyocav ydp,
byes ExP.aTot TO ply, rip kal Oddacoa,
kal ta lor édekdryv; (2) That the
two passages are directly connected
together by 7a oroxela Tov Kécpou,
which occurs in both vv. 8, 20; (3)
That it is not a simple transition once
for all from the Gnostic to the Judaic
element, but the epistle passes to and
fro several times from the one to the
other; while no hint is given that two

separate heresies are attacked, but on
the contrary the sentences are con-
nected in a logical sequence (e.g. ver.
Q drt, 10 os, 11 ev @, 12 &v @, 13 Kal,
16 ofv). I hope to make this point clear
in my notes on the passage.

The hypothesis of more than one
heresy is maintained also by Hein-
richs (Koppe N. T. vir. Part 2, 1803). At
an earlier date it seems to be favoured
by Grotius (notes on ii. 16, 21); but
his language is not very explicit. And
earlier still Calvin in his argument to
the epistle writes, ‘ Putant aliqui duo
fuisse hominum genera, qui abducere
tentarent Colossenses ab evangelii pu-
ritate,’ but rejects this view as uncalled
for.

The same question is raised with
regard to the heretical teachers of the
Pastoral Epistles, and should pro-
bably be answered in the same way.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. : 77

Apostolic age, it will obviously appear in a simple and ele-
mentary form. Divested of its accessories and presented in its
barest outline, it is not difficult of delineation’.

1. As the name attests*, Gnosticism implies the possession 1. Intel-
of a superior wisdom, which is hidden from others. It makes a she ned
distinction between the select few who have this higher gift, rll
and the vulgar many who are without it. Faith, blind faith, ism.

suffices the latter, while knowledge is the exclusive possession _
of the former. Thus it recognises a separation of intellectual .
caste in religion, introducing the distinction of an. esoteric
and an exoteric doctrine, and interposing an initiation of some —
kind or other between the two classes. In short it is animated .
by the exclusive aristocratic spirit®, which distinguishes the
ancient religions, and from which it was a main function of
Christianity to deliver mankind.

2. This was its spirit; and the intellectual questions, on 2. Specu-
which its energies were concentrated and to which it professed Norbit i
to hold the key, were mainly twofold. How can the work of Gnostic-
creation be explained ? and, How are we to account for the ex-
istence of evil*? To reconcile the creation of the world and Creation
the existence of evil with the conception of God as the abso- oe an
lute Being, was the problem which all the Gnostic systems set pi No
themselves to solve. It will be seen that the two questions
cannot be treated independently but have a very close and

intimate connexion with each other.

1 The chief authorities for the his-
tory of Gnosticism are NEANDER
Church History 11. p. 1 sq.; Baur Die
Christliche Gnosis (Tiibingen, 1835);
‘Marten Histoire Critique du Gnos-
ticisme (2nd ed., Strasbourg and Paris,
1843); R. A. Liesius Gnosticismus in
Ersch u. Gruber s. v. (Leipzig, 1860) ;
Manset Gnostic Heresies of the First
and Second Centuries (London, 1875) ;
and for Gnostic art, Kina Gnostics
and their Remains (London 1864).

2 See esp. Iren. i. 6. 1 sq., Clem.
Alex. Strom. ii. p. 433 8q. (Potter). On
the words rédecot, rvevuarixol, by which

they designated the possessors of this
higher gnosis, see the notes on Col. i.
28, and Phil. iii. 1s.

3 See Neander l.c. p. x sq., from
whom the epithet is borrowed.

4 The fathers speak of this as the
main question about which the Gno-
stics busy themselves; Unde malum?
wé0ev xaxta; Tertull. de Prescr. 7,
adv. Mare. 1. 2, Eus. H. E. v. 27;
passages quoted by Baur Christliche
Gnosis p.19. On the leading concep-
tions of Gnosticism see especially Ne-
ander, 1, ¢. p. 9 8q.

78

Existence
of evil,
how to be
explained?

Matter
the abode
of evil.

Creation,
how to be
explained?

Doctrine
of emana-
tions.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

The Gnostic argument ran as follows: Did God create the
world out of nothing, evolve it from Himself? Then, God
being perfectly good and creation having resulted from His
sole act without any opposing or modifying influence, evil
would have been impossible; for otherwise we are driven to
the conclusion that God created evil.

This solution being rejected as impossible, the Gnostic was
obliged to postulate some antagonistic principle independent
of God, by which His creative energy was thwarted and limited.
This opposing principle, the kingdom of evil, he conceived to
be the world of matter. The precise idea of its mode of
operation varies in different Gnostic systems. It is sometimes
regarded as a dead passive resistance, sometimes as a turbulent
active power. But, though the exact point of view may shift,
the object contemplated is always the same. In some way or
other evil is regarded as residing in the material, sensible
world. Thus Gnostic speculation on the existence of evil ends
in a dualism.

This point being conceded, the ulterior question arises:
How then is creation possible? How can the Infinite com-
municate with the Finite, the Good with the Evil? How can
God act upon matter? God is perfect, absolute, incompre-
hensible.

‘This, the Gnostic went on to argue, could only have been
possible by some self-limitation on the part of God. God must
express Himself in some way. There must be some evolution,
some effluence, of Deity. Thus the Divine Being germinates, as
it were; and the first germination again evolves a second from
itself in like manner. In this way we obtain a series of succes-
sive emanations, which may be more or fewer, as the requirements
of any particular system demand. In each successive evolution
the Divine element is feebler. They sink gradually lower and

lower in the scale, as they are farther removed from their

source; until at length contact with matter is possible, and
creation ensues. These are the emanations, eons, spirits, or
angels, of Gnosticism, conceived as more or less concrete and

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 79

-personal according to the different aspects in which they are

regarded in different systems.

3. Such is the bare outline (and nothing more is needed 3. Practi-
for my immediate purpose) of the speculative views of Gnostic- pep ii
ism. But it is obvious that these views must have exerted *™
a powerful influence on the ethical systems of their advocates,
and thus they would involve important practical consequences.

If matter is the principle of evil, it is of infinite moment for a
man to know how he can avoid its baneful influence and thus
keep his higher nature unclogged and unsullied.

To this practical question two directly opposite answers Two oppo-
were given’: pert

(i) On the one hand, it was contended that the desired () Rigia
end might best be attained by a rigorous abstinence. Thus *°e#¢is™.
communication with matter, if it could not be entirely avoided,
might be reduced to a minimum. Its grosser defilements
at all events would be escaped. The material part of man
would be subdued and mortified, if it could not be annihilated ;
and the spirit, thus set free, would be sublimated, and rise to
its proper level, Thus the ethics of Gnosticism pointed in the
first instance to a strict asceticism.

(ii) But obviously the results thus attained are very slight (ii) Un-
and inadequate. Matter is about us everywhere. We do but cea
touch the skirts of the evil, when we endeavour to fence our-
selves about by prohibitive ordinances, as, for instance, when we
enjoin a spare diet or forbid marriage. Some more compre-
hensive rule is wanted, which shall apply to every contingency

and every moment of our lives. Arguing in this way, other

Gnostic teachers arrived at an ethical rule directly opposed to
the former. ‘Cultivate an entire indifference, they said,
‘to the world of sense. Do not give it a thought one way or

1 On this point see Clem, Strom. iii. poodvns xarayyédXove1, with the whole
5 (p. 529) els dvo dehovres mpdyuara d- passage which follows, As examples
mwacas Tas alpéces droxpwwpela at- of the one extreme may be instanced
Tos’ ) yap To ddiaddpws fv duddo- the Carpocratians and Cainites: of the
kovow, 4 7d bréprovoy ayovca éyxpd- other the Encratites,
revav bia SvoceBelas Kal dirarexOy- secs

Pye

Original
independ-
ence of
Gnostic-
ism and
its subse-
quent con-
nexion
withChris-
tianity.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

the other, but follow your own impulses. The ascetic prin-
ciple assigns a certain importance to matter. The ascetic fails
in consequence to assert his own independence. The true rule
of life is to treat matter as something alien to you, towards
which you have no duties or obligations and which you can
use or leave unused as you like’’ In this way the reaction from
rigid asceticism led to the opposite extreme of unrestrained
licentiousness, both alike springing from the same false concep-
tion of matter as the principle of evil.

Gnosticism, as defined by these characteristic features, has
obviously no necessary connexion with Christianity Christi-
anity would naturally arouse it to unwonted activity, by lead-
ing men to dwell more earnestly on the nature and power of
evil, and thus stimulating more systematic thought on the
theological questions which.had already arrested attention.
After no long time Gnosticism would absorb into its system
more or fewer Christian elements, or Christianity in some of
its forms would receive a tinge from Gnosticism. But the
thing itself had an independent root, and seems to have been

1 See for instance the description
of the Carpocratians in Iren. i. 25. 3 sq.,
ii. 32. 1 8q., Hippol. Her. vii. 32, Epi-
phan. Her. xxvii. 2 8q.; from which
passages it appears that they justified
their moral profligacy on the principle
that the highest perfection consists in

_ the most complete contempt of mun-

dane things.

2 It will be seen from the descrip-
tion in the text, that Gnosticism (as
I have defined it) presupposes only a
belief in one God, the absolute Being,
as against the vulgar polytheism, All
iis essential features, as a speculative
system, may be explained from this
simple element of belief, without any
intervention of specially Christian or
even Jewish doctrine. Christianity
added two new elements to it; (1) the
idea of Redemption, (2) the person of
Christ. To explain the former, and to

find a place for the latter, henceforth
become prominent questions which
press for solution; and Gnosticism in
its several developments undergoes
various modifications in the endeavour
to solve them. Redemption must be
set in some relation to the fundamen-
tal Gnostic conception of the antagon-
ism between God and matter; and
Christ must have some place found
for Him in the fundamental Gnostic
doctrine of emanations.

If it be urged that there is no autho-
rity for the name ‘ Gnostic’ as applied
to these pre-Christian theosophists, I
am not concerned to prove the con-
trary, as my main position is not
affected thereby. The term ‘ Gnostic’
is here used, only because no other is
80 convenient or so appropriate. See
note 2, p. 81.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

‘prior in time. The probabilities of the case, and the scanty
traditions of history, alike point to this independence of the
two’. If.so, it is a matter of little moment at what precise
time the name ‘Gnostic’ was adopted, whether before or after
contact with Christianity ; for we are concerned only with the

growth and direction of thought which the name represents’.

If then Gnosticism was not an offspring of Christianity, Its alli-
ance with

but a direction of religious speculation which existed indepen-

dently, we are at liberty to entertain the question whether i
did not form an alliance with Judaism, contemporaneously anity.
with or prior to its alliance with Christianity.

There is at

least no obstacle which bars such an investigation at the out-

¥ This question will require closer
investigation when I come to discuss
the genuineness of the Epistle to the
Colossians. Meanwhile I content my-
self with referring to Baur Christliche
Gnosis p. 29 sq. and Lipsius Gnosti-
cismus p. 230 8q. Both these writers
concede, and indeed insist upon, the
non-Christian basis of Gnosticism, at
least so far as I have maintained it in
the text. Thus for instance Baur
says (p. 52), ‘Though Christian gnosis
is the completion of gnosis, yet the
Christian element in gnosis is not so
essential as that gnosis cannot still be
gnosis even without this element. But
just as we can abstract it from the
Christian element, so can we also gostill
further and regard even the Jewish as
not strictly an essential element of
gnosis.’ Inanother work (Die drei ersten
Jahrhunderte p. 167, 18st ed.) he ex-
presses himself still more strongly to
the same effect, but the expressions
are modified in the second edition.

2 We may perhaps gather from the
notices which are preserved that, though
the substantive yvao.s was used with
more or less precision even before con-
tact with Christianity to designate the
superior illumination of these opinions,

COL.

the adjective yrwortxol was not distinct-
ly applied to those who maintained
them till somewhat later. Still it is
possible that pre-Christian Gnostics
already so designated themselves.
Hippolytus speaks of the Naassenes
or Ophites as giving themselves this
name; Her. v. 6 pera 52 radra ére-
KaXecay éavrovds yvwortkovs, dadcKovres
povo. TH BaOn ywdoxew; comp. §§ 8,
11. His language seems to imply
(though it is not explicit) that they
were the first to adopt the name. The
Ophites were plainly among the earliest
Gnostic sects, as the heathen element
is still predominant in their teaching,
and their Christianity seems to have
been a later graft on their pagan theo-
sophy ; but at what stage in their

development they adopted the name .

yvwortkol does not appear. Irengus

(Her. i. 28. 6) speaks of the name as —

affected especially by the Carpocra-
tians. For the use of the substantive
yv eos See 1 Cor. viii. 1, xiii. 2, 8, 1 Tim,
vi. 20, and the note on Col. ii. 3: comp.
Rev. ii. 24 ofrwes odx éyvwoay ra Babéa
Tov Larava, ws Aéyouow (as explained
by the passage already quoted from
Hippol. Her. v. 6; see Galatians,
Pp- 309, note 3).

6

8I

Judaism
t before

S2 THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

set. If this should prove to be the case, then we have a
combination which prepares the way for the otherwise strange
phenomena presented in the Epistle to the Colossians.

The three Those, who have sought analogies to the three Jewish sects

Ss among the philosophical schools of Greece and Rome, have com-
pared the Sadducees to the Epicureans, the Pharisees to the
Stoies, and the Essenes to the Pythagoreans, Like all historical
parallels, this comparison is open to misapprehension: but,
earefully guarded, the illustration is pertinent and instructive.

Sadducee- With the Sadducees we have no concern here. Whatever

pee respect may be due to their attitude in the earlier stages of

me their history, at the Christian era at least they have ceased to
deserve our sympathy; for their position has become mainly
negative. They take their stand on denials—the denial of the
existence of angels, the denial of the resurrection of the dead,
the denial of a progressive development in the Jewish Church.
In these negative tendencies, in the materialistic teaching of the
sect, and in the moral consequences to which it led, a very
rough resemblance to the Epicureans will appear’.

Eee: The two positive sects were the Pharisees and the Essenes.

an

Essenism Both alike were strict observers of the ritual law; but, while
compared. the Pharisee was essentially practical, the tendency of the
Essene was to mysticism ; while the Pharisee was a man of
the world, the Essene was a member of a brotherhood. In this
respect the Stoic and the Pythagorean were the nearest counter-
parts which the history of Greek philosophy and social life could
offer. These analogies indeed are suggested by Josephus himself”.

BEDE : While the portrait of the Pharisee is distinctly traced and
aes easily recognised, this 1s not the case with the Essene. The

Essene is the great enigma of Hebrew history. Admired alike
by Jew, by Heathen, and by Christian, he yet remains a dim
vague outline, on which the highest subtlety of successive

1 The name Epicureans seems to ® For the Pharisees see Vit. 2 mapa-
be applied tothem eveninthe Talmud; mdArjoids éore 79 rap’ “EAAnoe Drwiky
see Hisenmenger’s Entdecktes Juden- eyoudvyn: for the Essenes, Ant. xv. 10.
thum 1. pp. 95, 6948q.; comp. Keim 4 duairy xpmdpevoy 7H wap “EdAnow vwd
Geschichte Jesu von Nazara i. p. 281. IIudaydpou caradederyuévy.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. . 83

critics has been employed to supply a substantial form and an
adequate colouring. . An ascetic mystical dreamy recluse, he
seems too far removed from the hard experience of life to be
capable of realisation.

And yet by careful use of the existing materials the pa
portrait of this sect may be so far restored; as to establish with tine? por-
a reasonable amount of probability the point with which alone raha
we are here concerned. It will appear from the delineations ttainable.
of ancient writers, more especially of Philo and Josephus, that
_ the characteristic feature of Essenism was a particular direction
of mystic speculation, involving a rigid asceticism as its prac-
tical consequence. Following the definition of Gnosticism
which has been already given, we may not unfitly call this
tendency Gnostic.

Having in this statement anticipated the results, I shall oa ra
now endeavour to develope the main features of Essenism ; Essenism.
and, while doing so, I will ask my readers to bear in mind
the portrait of the Colossian heresy in St Paul, and to mark
the resemblances, as the enquiry proceeds’.

The Judaic element is especially prominent in the life and
teaching of the sect. The Essene was exceptionally rigorous

in his observance of the Mosaic ritual. In his strict abstinence

1 The really important contempo-
rary sources of information respecting
the Essenes are Josreruus, Bell. Jud.
li, 8, 2—13, Ant. xiii. 5. 9, xviii. 1. 5,
Vit. 2 (with notices of individual Es-
senes Bell. Jud. i. 3.5, ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4,
lil. 2, 1, Ant. xiii. 11. 2, XV. 10. 4, 5)3
and Puino, Quod omnis probus liber
§ 12 sq. (I. p. 457 8q.), Apol. pro Jud.
(i1. p. 632 sq., a fragment quoted by
Husebius Prep. Evang. viii. 11). The
account of the Therapeutes by the
latter writer, de Vita Contemplativa
(11. p. 471 Sq.), must also be consulted,
as describing a closely allied sect. To
these should be added the short notice
of Purny, N. H. v. 15. 17, as expressing
the views of a Roman writer. His ac-

count, we may conjecture, was taken
from Alexander Polyhistor, a contem-

porary of Sulla,-whom he mentions

in his -prefatory elenchus as one of
his authorities for this 5th book, and
who wrote a work On the Jews (Clem.
Alex, Strom. i. 21, p.: 396, Euseb.
Prep. Ev, ix. 17). Significant men-
tion of the Essenes is found also
in the Christian Hzczsrrrus (Euseb.
H. E, iy. 22) and in the heathen Dion
Curysostom (Synesius Dion 3, p. 39).
EpipHanius (Her. pp. 28 sq., 40 8q.)
discusses two separate sects, which he
calls Essenes and Osseans respectively.
These are doubtless different names of
the same persons. His account is, as
usual, confused and inaccurate, but

6—2

$4

Observ-
ance of the
Mosaic
law.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

from work on the sabbath he far surpassed all the other Jews,
He would not light a fire, would not move a vessel, would not

perform even the most ordinary functions of life’.

The whole

day was given up to religious exercises and to exposition of the

has a certain value, All other autho-
ritiesaresecondary. H1pronyrvus, Her.
ix. 18—28, follows Josephus (Bell. Jud.
li. 8. 28q.) almost exclusively. Por-
PHYRY also (de Abstinentia, iv. 11 sq.)
copies this same passage of Josephus,
with a few unimportant exceptions
probably taken from a lost work by
the same author, mpds rovs “EX)nvas,
which he mentions by name. HvusE-
Bius (Prep. Evang. viii. 11 8q., ix. 3)
contents himself with quoting Philo
and Porphyry. Soxinus (Polyh. xxxy.
9 sq.) merely abstracts Pliny. Tat-
MUDICAL and RABBINICAL passages, sup-
posed to contain references to the Es-
senes, are collected by Frankel in the

articles mentioned in a later para-

graph; but the allusions are most un-
certain (see the second dissertation on
the Essenes). The authorities for the
history of the Essenes are the subject
of an article by W. Clemens in the
Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1869,p. 3288q.

The attack on the genuineness of
Philo’s treatise De Vita Contemplativa
made by Gratz (111. p. 463 sq.) has
been met by Zeller (Philosophie, 111, il.
p- 255 8q.), whose refutation is com-
plete. The attack of the same writer
(111. p. 464) on the genuineness of the
treatise Quod omnis probus liber Zeller
considers too frivolous to need refuting
(ib. p. 235). A refutation will be found
in the above-mentioned article of W.
Clemens (p. 340 8q.).

Of modern writings relating to the
Essenes the following may be. espe-
cially mentioned; BeLLERMANN Ueber
Esster u. Therapeuten, Berlin 1821;
Grr6ORER Philo u. p. 299 8q.; DANE
Ersch u. Gruber’s Encyklopidie s. v.;
FranKEL Zeitschrift fiir die religidsen

Interessen des Judenthums 1846 p. 441
sq., Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte u.
Wissenschaft des Judenthums 1853,
P- 308q., 61 sq.; BotraeR Ueber den
Orden der Essdéer, Dresden 1849;
Ewaup Geschichte des Volkes Israel rv.
Pp. 4208q., VII. p. 153 8q.; RiTscHn
Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kirche
p. 179 sq. (ed. 2, 1857), and Theolo-
gische Jahrbiicher 1855, p. 315 8q.$
Jost Geschichte des Judenthums 1. p.
2078q.; GRAETZ Geschichte der Juden
III. p. 79 8q., 463 sq. (ed. 2, 1863);
HincEenretp Jiidische Apocalyptik p.
245 8q., and Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol.
x. Pp. .O7 80.5. Xi.: pi 343 (8q.,. XIV. “ps
30 sq.; Westcorr Smith's Dictionary
of the Bible s. v.; Ginspura The
Essenes, London 1864, and in Kitto’s
Cyclopedia 8. v.; DERENBoURG L’ His-
toire et la Géographie de la Palestine
p. 166 sq., 460 sq.; Kerm Geschichte
Jesu von Nazara 1. p. 282 sq.; Haus-
RATH Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte
I. p. 133 8q.; Lipstus Schenkel’s Bibel
Lexikon 8. v.; HERnzFELp Geschichte
des Volkes Israel 11. 368 sq., 388 8q.,
509 sq. (ed. 2, 1863); ZELLER Philo-
sophie der Griechen ill. 2, p. 234 8q.
(ed. 2, 1868); LancEN Judenthum in
Palistina p. 1908q.; Lowy Kritisch-tal-
mudisches Lexicon s.v. (Wien 1863);
Weiss Zur Geschichte der jiidischen
Tradition p. 120 sq. (Wien).

1 BJ. ii. 8. g Guddooovra ... Tais
éBdspacw epywr éparrecbar Suagpopdrara
*Tovialwy amdvrwv* ot pdovov yap Tpopas
EauTots Tpo uepas pads TapacKkevafovery,
ws unde wip évatorev éxelvy rH Huépa, AA’
ovdéoxedds Tt meTaKivjoat Oappodowk.T.r.
Hippolytus (Her. ix. 25) adds that some
of them do not so much as leave their
beds on this day.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 85

Scriptures’. His respect for the law extended also to the law-
giver. After God, the name of Moses was held in the highest
reverence. He who blasphemed his name was punished with
death*. In all these points the Essene was an exaggeration,
almost a caricature, of the Pharisee.

So far the Essene has not departed from the principles of External

‘ ‘ . elemenis
normal Judaism; but here the divergence begins. In three guper.
main points we trace the working of influences which must ®4¢4.

have been derived from external sources.

I. To the legalism of the Pharisee, the Essene added an x. Rigid
asceticism, which was peculiarly his own, and which in many rope
respects contradicted the tenets of the other sect. The honour-
able, and even exaggerated, estimate of marriage, which was
characteristic of the Jew, and of the Pharisee as the typical Jew,
found no favour with the Essene*. Marriage was to him an marriage,
abomination. Those Essenes who lived together as members of
an order, and in whom the principles of the sect were carried to
their logical consequences, eschewed it altogether. To secure
the continuance of their brotherhood they adopted children,
whom they brought up in the doctrines and practices of the
community. There were others however who took a different
view. ‘They accepted marriage, as necessary for the preservation
of the race. Yet even with them it seems to have been regard-
ed only as an inevitable evil. They fenced it off by stringent
rules, demanding a three years’ probation and enjoining various

ear *

ne

1 Philo Quod omn. prob. lib. § 12.
Of the Therapeutes see Philo Vit. Cont.
§ 3) 4+

2B. J. 1. & § 9 céBas dé wéyiorov
map avrots werd Tov Oedy 7d dvoua Too
vopobérou, Kav Bacgnuroy tis els ToOTov
(i.e. Tov vomobérgr), KoAdfecOar Oavary:
comp. § Io.

* B. Jv, c. § 2 ydwou pev vrepola
map avrois... Tas Tay yuvackav doed-
yelas pudaccouevoe Kat pndeulay rypetv
memeopévoe THY mpds eva miorw, Ant.
Xvili. 1. 5; Philo Fragm. p. 633 -yduov
TWAPYTHTAVTO META TOU Siahepovrws dokeiv

éyxpareav’ "Hooalwy yap ovdels dyerac
yuaika, dare pidavrov f yuvh Kal gydo-
TuTov ob peTpiws Kal Sewdv dvdpds 7On
mapacadevoat, with more to the same
purpose. This peculiarity astonished
the heathen Pliny, N. H. v. 15, ‘gens
sola et in toto orbe preter ceteros mira,
sine ulla femina, venere abdicata...
In diem ex squo convenarum turba
renascitur large frequentantibus. ..
Ita per seculorum millia (incredibile
dictu) gens s#terna est, in qua nemo

-nascitur. Tam foecunda illis aliorum

vite poenitentia est.’

86

meats and
drinks

and oil for

anointing.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

purificatory rites’. The conception of marriage, as quickening
and educating the affections and thus exalting and refining
human life, was wholly foreign to their minds. Wornan was
a mere instrument of temptation in their eyes, deceitful,
faithless, selfish, jealous, misled and misleading by her passions.
But their ascetic tendencies did not stop here. The
Pharisee was very careful to observe the distinction of meats
lawful and unlawful, as laid down by the Mosaic code, and even
rendered these ordinances vexatious by minute definitions of
his own. But the Essene went far beyond him. He drank
no wine, he did not touch animal food., His meal consisted of
a piece of bread and a single mess of vegetables. Even this
simple fare was prepared for him by special officers consecrated
for the purpose, that it might be free from all contamination’.
Nay, so stringent were the rules of the order on this point,
that when an Essene was excommunicated, he often died of
starvation, being bound by his oath not to take food prepared
by defiled hands, and thus being reduced to eat the very grass
of the field’®.
Again, in hot climates oil for anointing the body is almost
a necessary of life. From this too the Essenes. strictly ab-
stained. Even if they were accidentally smeared, they were
careful at once to wash themselves, holding the mere touch to
be a contamination *,

1 B.J.1.¢.§ 13. Josephus speaks

evreng Kal dor Gres, ovs of dBpodvaro-

of these as érepov "Eoonvav rdypua, 6 ol-
aray méev Kal €0n Kal vducua Tots dAdols
Guoppovour, Siecros Oéry KaTa ydpov doéy-
We may suppose that they correspond-
ed to the third order of a Benedictine
or Franciscan brotherhood; so that,
living in the world, they would observe
the rule up to a certain point, but
would not be bound by vows of celibacy
or subject to the more rigorous dis-
cipline of the sect.

2 B. J. 1.¢. § 5; see Philo’s account
of the Therapeutes, Vit. Cont. § 4 ov
Tovrat 6¢ moAduredes ovdéy, aAAd dprov

TATOL TapapTvovoly VaocwM@' wordy Vdwp
vamariatoy avrots €or; and again more
to the same effect in § 9: and compare
the Essene story of St James in Hege-
sippus (Euseb. H. E. ii. 23) olvoy ral
alkepa ovx emvev, odbe Euyuxov eparye.
Their: abstention from animal food
accounts for Porphyry’s giving them
so prominent a place in his treatise:
see Zeller, p. 243.

ca > oar eal. A

4 B. J.1. c § 3 Kydtda 5é vrodauBa-
vouvot Td éhatov x.7.d.; Hegesippus l. c.
Edatov odk HrelWaro.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. — ‘Sy

From these facts it seems clear that Essene abstinence was Underly-
something more than the mere exaggeration of Pharisaic prin- ao hie
ciples. The rigour of the Pharisce was based on his obligation of #4.
obedience to an absolute external law. The Essene introduced
a new principle. He condemned in any form the gratification
of the natural cravings, nor would he consent to regard it as
moral or immoral only according to the motive which suggested
it or the consequences which flowed from it. It was in
itself an absolute evil. -He sought to disengage himself, as far
as possible, from the conditions of physical life. In short, in
the asceticism of the Essene we seem to see the germ of that
Gnostic dualism which regards matter as the principle, or at
least the abode, of evil.

2, And, when we come to investigate the speculative tenets 2. Specu-
of the sect, we shall find that the Essenes have diverged siired "
appreciably from the common type of Jewish orthodoxy,

(i) Attention was directed above to their respect for (i) Tend.
Moses and the Mosaic law, which they shared in common with ai as
the Pharisee. But there was another side to their theological *™?-
teaching. Though our information is somewhat defective, still
in the scanty notices which are preserved we find sufficient
indications that they had absorbed some foreign elements of
religious thought into their system. Thus at day-break they
addressed certain prayers, which had been handed down from
their forefathers, to the Sun, ‘as if entreating “him to rise’,

They were careful also to conceal and bury all polluting sub-
stances, so as not ‘to insult the rays of the god*’ We can-

1 B.d.1.¢.§ 5 mpds ye wiv 70 Getov
llws edoeBets* rply yap dvacxeiv Tov AALOV

ovdey POéyyovras Tay BeBwv, rarplovs —

dé rwas els abrov evxds, domep ikerevovres
dvaretkac. Compare what Philo says
of the Therapeutes, Vit. Cont. § 3
mAlov pev avloxovros evnueplay alrovmevor
Thy byTws evnueplav, pwrds ovpavrlov THY
dudvovay avrav dvarAnoOnvat, andib.§ 11.
On the attempt of Frankel (Zeitschr.
p. 458) to resolve this worship, which

Josephus states to be offered to the sun
(els adrov), into the ordinary prayers of
the Pharisaic Jew at day-break, see the
second dissertation on the Essenes.
2B, J.1. 6. § 9 ws wh Tas ad-yas vBpl-
fovev Tob Oeov. There can be no doubt,
I think, that by roi Geod is meant the
*‘sun-god’; comp. Eur. Heracl. 749
Ge00 pacoluBporo avyal, Ale. 722 70
géyyos Tobro Tov Geod, Appian Pref. g
Svouévou Tov Oeod, Lib. 113 Tov Geob

88

(ii) Resur-
rection of
the body
denied.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

not indeed suppose that they regarded the sun as more than a
symbol of the unseen power who gives light and life; but their
outward demonstrations of reverence were sufficiently promi-
nent to attach to them, or to a sect derived from them, the
epithet of ‘Sun-worshippers’,’ and some connexion with the
characteristic feature of Parsee devotion at once suggests itself. .
The practice at all events stands in strong contrast to the

denunciations of worship paid to the ‘hosts of heaven’ in the

Hebrew prophets.

(ii) Nor again is it an insignificant fact that, while the

Pharisee maintained the resurrection of the body as a cardinal
article of his faith, the Essene restricted himself to a belief in

the immortality of the soul.

fined in the flesh, as in a prison-house.
from these fetters would it» be truly free.
soar aloft, rejoicing in its newly attained liberty’.

The soul, he maintained, was con-

Only when disengaged
Then it would
This

doctrine accords with the fundamental conception of the

malignity of matter.

mept del\nv éorépay dvros, Civ. iv. 79
Suvovros &pre Tou Geod: comp. Herod. ii.
24. Dr Ginsburg has obliterated this
very important touch by translating rds
avyas Too Geot ‘the Divine rays’ (Essenes
p. 47). It is a significant fact that
Hippolytus (H@r. ix. 25) omits the
words7ov Geot, evidently regarding them
as a stumbling-block. How Josephus
expressed himself in the original He-
brew of the Bellum Judaicum, it is

vain to speculate: but the Greek trans-°

lation was authorised, if not made, by
him.

1 Epiphan. Her. xix. 2, xx. 3 ’Oo-
onvol 6é peréorynocay dro "lovéaicpot els
Ty Tov Zappalwy atpec, liii. 1, 2 Dap-
Wato. yap épunvevovrar ‘Hdraxol, from
the Hebrew WOW ‘the sun.’ The
historical connexion of the Sampsxans
with the Essenes is evident from these
passages: though it is difficult to say
what their precise relations to each

To those who held this conception a

other were. See below, p. 374.

2B. J.1.¢. § 11 Kal ydp tppwrat rap’
avrois noe n Sdéa, POaprada pev elvar Ta
cupata Kal Thy UAnv ov pdvipov auTots,
Tas 6é puxas dbavdrous del diapéverr.. .
éreday 6¢ aveOGor THv KaTa odpKa Oec-
pov, ota Sh waxpas Sovrelas dwndday-
pévas, Tore xalpew Kal perewpous Pépeo-
6a. x.7.X. To this doctrine the teach-
ing of the Pharisees stands in direct
contrast; ib. § 13: comp. also Ant.
p< BT a ge es

Nothing can be more explicit than
the language of Josephus. On theother
hand Hippolytus (Her. ix. 27) says of
them dporoyotor yap Kal Thy odpKka
avacthcecOa Kal écecOac dOdvarov Sv
Tpbrov 45n dbdvards éorw 4 YuxXh K.T.r.3
but his authority is worthless on this
point, as he can have had no personal

knowledge of the facts: see Zeller p.

251, note 2. Hilgenfeld takes a dif-
ferent view; Zeitschr. XIV. Pp. 49.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 89

resurrection of the body would be repulsive, as involving a
perpetuation of evil. 3

(iii) But they also separated themselves from the religious (iii) Pro-
belief of the orthodox Jew in another respect, which would nia
provoke more notice. While they sent gifts to the temple
at Jerusalem, they refused to offer sacrifices there’. It would
appear that the slaughter of animals was altogether forbidden
by their creed*. It is certain that they were afraid of con-
tracting some ceremonial impurity by offering victims in the
temple. Meanwhile they had sacrifices, bloodless sacrifices, of
their own. They regarded their simple meals with their
accompanying prayers and thanksgiving, not only as devotional
but even as sacrificial rites. Those who prepared and presided
over these meals were their consecrated priests *. |

(iv) In what other respects they may have departed from, (iv) Eso-

‘ teric doc-
or added to, the normal creed of Judaism, we do not know. trine of

But it is expressly stated that, when a novice after passing *78!*-
through the probationary stages was admitted to the full privi-
leges of the order, the oath of admission bound him ‘ to conceal
nothing from the members of the sect, and to report nothing
concerning them to others, even though threatened with death ;
not to communicate any of their doctrines to anyone otherwise
than as he himself had received them; but to abstain from

to guard carefully the books

robbery, and in like manner

1 Ant. xviii. 1. 5 els 6€ 7d lepdv dva-
Ojpard te oté\dovres Ovolas ovK émire-
Nodat Suadopdryre aryverdv, ds voulfoer,
kal 6¢ adrd eipyduevor Tod Kowod Tepevic-
patos ép adrav ras Ovolas émiredodar.
So Philo Quod omn. prob. lib. § 12 de-
scribes them as od {Ga karaOvovres d\N
lepomperets’ Tas éavrdy diavolas Kara-
oxevacew a&iodvres.

2 The following considerations show
that their abstention should probably
be explained in this way: (1) Though
the language of Josephus may be am-
biguous, that of Philo is unequivocal
on this point; (2) Their abstention

from the temple-sacrifices cannot be
considered apart from the fact that they
ate no animal food: see above p. 86,
note 2. (3) The Christianised Es-
senes, or Ebionites, though strong
Judaizers in many respects, yet dis-
tinctly protested against the sacrifice
of animals; see Clem. Hom. iii. 45, 52,
and comp. Ritschl p.224. On this sub-
ject see also Zeller p. 242 8q., and my
second dissertation.

3 Ant. xviii. 1. 5 lepets re [eupo-
rovovot] da wolyow olrov Te Kal Bowud-
tw, B. J, ii, 8. 5 mpoxaredxeras 5é 6 le-
pevds This Tpopijs K.7.A.; See Ritschl p.181.

90

(v) Specu-
lations on
God and
Creation.

(vi) Magic-
al charms.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

of their sect, and the names of the angels’ It may be reason-
ably supposed that more lurks under this last expression than
meets the ear. This esoteric doctrine, relating to angelic beings,
may have been another link which attached Essenism to the
religion of Zoroaster’. At all events we seem to be justified
in connecting it with the self-imposed service and worshipping
of angels at Colosse: and we may well suspect that we have
here a germ which was developed into the Gnostic doctrine of
geons or emanations.

(v) Ifso, it is not unconnected with another notice relating
to Essene peculiarities. The Gnostic doctrine of intermediate
beings between God and the world, as we have seen, was
intimately connected with speculations respecting creation.
Now we are specially informed that the Essenes, while leaving
physical studies in general* to speculative idlers (werewpo-
Aéoyvais), as being beyond the reach of human nature, yet
excepted from their general condemnation that philosophy
which treats of the existence of God and the generation of the
universe *.

(vi) Mention has been made incidentally of certain secret
books peculiar to the sect. The existence of such an apocryphal
literature was a sure token of some abnormal development in
doctrine*. In the passage quoted it is mentioned in relation to

1B, J.l.c. § 7 8pxouvs adrois duvvee 2 See the second dissertation.

ppixwdes...unre Kpvwew Te Tovds aipe-
Tiras unre ETépots avTH Te unvicew, Kat
dv péxpt Oavarov tis Pidgnrat. ampos
ToUTOLs duvvovot pydevl pev peTacodrat
roy Soyparuv érépws 7 ws adrds peré-
AaBev’ apéEerOar 6é AnoTelas Kal ouvTy-
phoew duolws Ta Te THs alpécews alrav
BiBMla Kal 7a tay ayyé\wv dvduara.
With this notice should be compared
the Ebionite S:auaprupla, or protest of
initiation, prefixed to the Clementine
Homilies, which shows how closely
the Christian Essenes followed the
practice of their Jewish predecessors
in this respect. See Zeller p. 254.

3 Philo Omn. prob. lib. § 12 (p. 458)
7d 5é guotkdv ws petfov 7} KaT& avOpwrl-
vnv piow pmerewporeoxas amodcrdvTes,
adi Scov adtod wept vrapiews Oeod Kal
Ths ToD mavrds yevécews PirocoPpetrat.

+ The word Apocrypha was used
originally to designate the secret books
which contained the esoteric doctrine
of a sect. The secondary sense ‘ spu-
rious’ was derived from the general
character of these writings, which were
heretical, mostly Gnostic, forgeries.
See Prof. Plumptre’s article Apocrypha
in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible,
and the note on dréxpugor below, ii. 3.

=m

Lee

=

3 -- A A TE — beeen fot OO 5 ca a 7 y > Fade pi
’

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

some form of angelology. Elsewhere their skill in prediction,
for which they were especially famous, is connected with the
perusal of certain ‘sacred books, which however are not

described *.

But more especially, we are told that the Essenes

studied with extraordinary diligence the writings of the
ancients, selecting those especially Which could be turned to
profit for soul and body, and that from these they learnt the
qualities of roots and the properties of stones*, This expres-

1B. J. ii, 8. 12 lot 5& & adrots of
Kal 7a wé\OVTA TpoywwoKew UTLexVvodr-
Tat, BiBrors lepats cal diaddpors ayvelacs
Kal mpopyray dmopbéyuacw éumadorpi-

Bovpevor* cmdviov 5é, elmore, év Tais mpo-

ayopedceswy dcroxjcovow. Dr Ginsburg
(p. 49) translates BiSdos lepats ‘ the
sacred Scripture,’ and mpo@yray do-
pbéypacw ‘ the sayings of the prophets’;
but as the definite articles are wanting,
the expressions cannot be so rendered,
nor does there seem to be any refer-
ence to the Canonical writings.

We learn from an anecdote in Ant.
xiii, 11. 2, that the teachers of this
sect communicated the art of predic-
tion to their disciples by instruction.
We may therefore conjecture that with
the Essenes this acquisition was con-
nected with magic or astrology. At all
events it is not treated as a direct
inspiration.

2B. J. ii. 8. 6 cmrovidgover 6 éxrd-
mws wept Ta TO waaay ovyypdpypara,
pddiora Ta pds wpédevav Wux7js kal od-
baros éxhéyorres* vOev abrots mpds Gepa-
melav maddy pifar re de&iryptoe Kal Ow
idiérnres avepevvGyra. This passage
might seem at first sight to refer simply
to the medicinal qualities of vegetable
and mineral substances; buta compari-
son with another notice in Josephus in-
vestsit with a differentmeaning. In Ant.
‘Vili. 2, 5 he states that Solomon, having
received by divine inspiration the art
of defeating demons for the advantage
and healing of man (els dpéAeay Kal

Ocparelav Tots dvOpdmo.s), composed and
left behind him charms (érwéds) by
which diseases were allayed, and diverse
kinds of exorcisms (rpdérous éfopxwoewr)

by which demons were castout. ‘This.

mode of healing,’ he adds, ‘is very
powerful even to the present day’; and
he then relates how, as he was credibly
informed (icrédpyoa), one of his coun-
trymen, Eleazar by name, had healed
several persons possessed by demons
inthe presence of Vespasian and his
sons and a number of officers and com-
mon soldiers. This he did by applying
to the nose of the possessed his ring,
which had concealed in it one of the
roots which Solomon had directed to
be used, and thus drawing out the
demon through the nostrils of the
person smelling it. Atthe same time
he adjured the evil spirit not to re-
turn, ‘making mention of Solomon
and repeating the charms composed
by him.’ On one occasion this E-
leazar gave ocular proof that the de-
mon was exorcized; and thus, adds
Josephus, cagijs 4 DoNouwvos kabicraro
-civeots kat copia. On these books re-
lating to the occult arts and ascribed
to Solomon see Fabricius Cod. Pseud.
Vet. Test. 1. p. 1036 sq., where many
curious notices are gathered together.
See especially Origen Jn Matth.Comm.
Xxxv..§ 110 (IIL. p. g10), Pseudo-Just.

Quest. 55.
This interpretation explains all the

expressions in the passage. The NlOwy

Or

3. Exclu-
sive spirit
of Essen-
ism.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

sion, as illustrated by other notices, points clearly to the study
of occult sciences, and recalls the alliance with the practice
of magical arts, which was a distinguishing feature of Gnos-
ticism, and is condemned by Christian teachers even in the
heresies of the Apostolic age.

3. But the notice to which I have just alluded suggests
a broader affinity with Gnosticism. Not only did the theo-
logical speculations of the Essenes take a Gnostic turn, but
they guarded their peculiar tenets with Gnostic reserve. They
too had their esoteric doctrine which they looked upon as the
exclusive possession of the privileged few; their ‘mysteries’
which it was a grievous offence to communicate to the un-
initiated. This doctrine was contained, as we have seen, in an
apocryphal literature. Their whole organisation was arranged
so as to prevent the divulgence of its secrets to those without.
The long period of noviciate, the careful rites of initiation, the
distinction of the several orders* in the community, the solemn
oaths by which they bound their members, were so many
safeguards against a betrayal of this precious deposit, which

1g and elsewhere, referring to magical
arts, illustrates its use here,

Thus these Essenes were dealers in
charms, rather than physicians. And
yet it is quite possible that along with
this practice of the occult sciences they
studied the healing art in its nobler
forms. The works of Alexander of
Tralles, an eminent ancient physician,
constantly recommend the use of such

iéiérnres naturally points to the use of
charms or amulets, as may be seen e.g.
from the treatise, Damigeron de Lapi-
dibus, printed in the Spicil. Solemn. 11.
Pp. 3248q.: comp. King Antique Gems
Sect. rv, Gnostics and their Remains.
The reference to ‘the books of the an-
cients’ thus finds an adequate expla-
nation. On the other hand the only
expression which seemed to militate

against this view, dAegurjpios plea, is
justified by the story in the Antiqui-
ties; comp. also Clem. Hom. viii. 14.
It:should be added also that Hippolytus
(Her. ix. 22) paraphrases the language
of Josephus so as to give it this sense;
mavu 5¢ meptépyws eéxovor wept Bordvas
kal dlOous, meptepydbrepoe bvTes mpods
Tas ToUTwy évepyelas, PackorTes Uh WaT NP
Taira yevovévat. The sense which ze-
plepyos (‘curiosus’) bears in Acts xix.

charms, of which some obviously come
from a Jewish source and not impro-
bably may have been taken from these
Solomonian books to which Josephus
refers. A number of passages from
this and other writers, specifying
charms of various kinds, are given in
Becker and Marquardt Rom. Alterth.
Iv. p. 116sq. See also Spencer’s note
on Orig. c. Cels. p. 17 Sq.
1 See especially B. J. ii. 8. 7, 10.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 03

they held to be restricted to the inmost circle of the brother-
hood.

In selecting these details I have not attempted to give a
finished portrait of Essenism. From this point of view the de-
lineation would be imperfect and misleading: for I have left out
of sight the nobler features of the ‘sect, their courageous en-
durance, their simple piety, their brotherly love. My object was
solely to call attention to those features which distinguish
it from the normal type of Judaism, and seem to justify the
attribution of Gnostic influences. And here it has been seen The three
that the three characteristics, which were singled out above as 2°'¢8o

Gnostic-
distinctive of Gnosticism, reappear in the Essenes; though it ism found

has been convenient to consider them in the reversed order. oven
This Jewish sect exhibits the same exclusiveness in the com-
munication of its doctrines. Its theological speculations take

the same direction, dwelling on the mysteries of creation,
regarding matter as the abode of evil, and postulating certain
intermediate spiritual agencies as necessary links of communi-

cation between heaven and earth. And lastly, its speculative
opinions involve the same ethical conclusions, and lead in

like manner to a rigid asceticism. If the notices relating to

these points do not always explain themselves, yet read in

the light of the heresies of the Apostolic age and in that of
subsequent Judeo-Gnostic Christianity, their bearing seems to

be distinct enough; so that we should not be far wrong, if we

were to designate Essenism as Gnostic Judaism’.

But the Essenes of whom historical notices are preserved How

were inhabitants of the Holy Land. Their monasteries were biti 2
situated on the shores of the Dead Sea. We are told indeed, #8*2°s

? dispersed?
that the sect was not confined to any one place, and that

1 I have said nothing of the Kab-
bala, as a development of Jewish
thought illustrating the Colossian he-
resy: because the books containing
the Kabbalistic speculations are com-
paratively recent, and if they contain
ancient elements, it seems impossible

to separate these from later additions
or to assign to them even an approxi-
mate date. The Kabbalistic doctrine
however will serve to show to what
extent Judaism may be developed in
the direction of speculative mystic-
ism.

04

Do they
appear in
Asia
Minor?

How the

term E's-

sene is to
be under-
stood.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

members of the order were found in great numbers in divers
cities and villages’, But Judea in one notice, Palestine and Syria
in another, are especially named as the localities of the Essene
settlements*. Have we any reason to suppose that they were
represented among the Jews of the Dispersion? In Egypt
indeed we find ourselves confronted with a similar ascetic
sect, the Therapeutes, who may perhaps have had an inde-
pendent origin, but who nevertheless exhibit substantially the
same type of Jewish thought and practice*. But the Disper-
sion of Egypt, it may be argued, was exceptional; and we might
expect to find here organisations and developments of Judaism
hardly less marked and various than in the mother country.
What ground have we for assuming the existence of this type
in Asia Minor? Do we meet with any traces of it in the cities
of the Lycus, or in proconsular Asia generally, which would
justify the opinion that it might make its influence felt in the
Christian communities of that district ?

Now it has been shown that the colonies of the Jews in
this neighbourhood were populous and influential*; and it
might be argued with great probability that among these
large numbers Essene Judaism could not be unrepresented.
But indeed throughout this investigation, when I speak of
the Judaism in the Colossian Church as Essene, I do not
assume a precise identity of origin, but only an essential

1 Philo Fragm. p. 632 olkxodcr &é
moANas mev modes THS “lovdalas, mods
dé kdéuas, kal peyddous Kal ro\vavOpw-
mous outrous; Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 4 pla
5é ovk eorw airy modus, GAN év exdory
Karoikovot moAAol. On the notices of
the settlements and dispersion of the
Essenes see Zeller p. 239.

2 Philo names Judea in Fragm. p.
6323; Palestine and Syria in Quod omn.
prob. lib. 12, p. 457. Their chief set-
tlements were in the neighbourhood
of the Dead Sea. This fact is men-
tioned by the heathen writers Pliny
(N. H. v. 15) and Dion Chrysostom
(Synesius Dio 3). The name of the

‘Hssene gate’ at Jerusalem (B. J. v.
4. 2) seems to point to some establish-
ment of the order close to the walls of
that city.

3 They are only known to us from
Philo’s treatise de Vita Contemplativa.
Their settlements were on the shores
of the Mareotic lake near Alexandria.
Unlike the Essenes, they were not
gathered together in convents as mem-
bers of a fraternity, but lived apart as
anchorites, though in the same neigh-
bourhood. In other respects their
tenets and practices were very similar
to those of the Essenes.

4 See above p. 19 sq.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.” 95

affinity of type, with the Essenes of the mother country. As
a matter of history, it may or may not have sprung from the
colonies on the shores of the Dead Sea; but as this can neither
be proved nor disproved, so also it is immaterial to my main
purpose. All along its frontier, wherever Judaism became Probabili-
‘ a ties of the
enamoured of and was wedded to Oriental mysticism, the case.
same union would produce substantially the same results.
In a country where Phrygia, Persia, Syria, all in turn had
moulded religious thought, it would be strange indeed if
Judaism entirely escaped these influences. Nor, as a matter of
fact, are indications wanting to show that it was not unaffected
by them. If the traces are few, they are at least as numerous Direct
and as clear as with our defective information on the whole nica
subject we have any right to expect in this particular instance.
When St Paul visits Ephesus, he comes in contact with St Paul at
certain strolling Jews, exorcists, who attempt to cast out evil pear!
spirits’, Connecting this fact with the notices of Josephus, from 57:
which we infer that exorcisms of this kind were especially Exorcisms
practised by the Essenes*, we seem to have an indication of 7
their presence in the capital of proconsular Asia. If so, it is
a significant fact that in their exorcisms they employed the
name of our Lord: for then we must regard this as the earliest
notice of those overtures of alliance on the part of Essenism,
f which involved such important consequences in the subse-
quent history of the Church*®. It is also worth observing,
that the next incident in St Luke’s narrative is the burn-
ing of their magical books by those whom St Paul converted magical
on this occasion*, As Jews are especially mentioned among
these converts, and as books of charms are ascribed to the
Kssenes by Josephus, the two incidents, standing in this close

1 Acts xix. 13 rdpy meprepyoudrwr

in this passage: see Wetstein ad loc.,

*Tovdalwy éEopxtaTay.

2 See above p. gr, note 2.

3 On the latter contact of Essenism
with Christianity, see the third disser-
tation, and Galatians p 322 sq.

4 There is doubtless a reference to
the charms called ’Edéoia yoduuara

and the references in Becker and Mar-

quardt Rom, Alterth. Iv. p. 123 sq. -

But this supposition does not exclude
the Jews from a share in these magical
arts, while the context points to some
such participation.

96

Sibylline
- Oracle
A.D. 80.

“THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

connexion, throw great light on the type of Judaism which
thus appears at Ephesus’.

Somewhat later we have another notice which bears in
the same direction. The Sibylline Oracle, which forms the
fourth book in the existing collection, is discovered by internal
evidence to have been written about A.D. 807. It is plainly
a product of Judaism, but its Judaism does not belong to
the normal Pharisaic type. With Essenism it rejects sacri-
fices, even regarding the shedding of blood as a pollution’,
and with Essenism also it inculcates the duty of frequent
washings *, Yet from other indications we are led to the con-
clusion, that this poem was not written in the interests of
Essenism properly so called, but represents some allied though

1 Tcanonly regard it as an accidental
coincidence that the epulones of the
Ephesian Artemis were called Essenes,
Pausan. vill, 13. I rods TH Apréuée
isridropas TH Eqeola yivouevous, kadov-
pévous 6 v7rd THY TodiTGY Hoojvas: see
Guhl Ephesiaca 106 sq. The Etymol.
Magn. has ’Eoonv: 6 Bacite’s kara ’Ede-
clovs, and adds several absurd deriva-
tions of the word. In the sense of ‘a
king’ it is used by Callimachus Hymn.
Jov. 66 ob oe Oedy Ecojva mad bécav. It
is probably not a Greek word, as other
terms connected with the worship of
the Ephesian Artemis (e.g. weyaBufos,
a Persian word) point to an oriental
or at least a non-Greek origin; and
some have derived it from the Ara-
maic }'DN chasin ‘strong’ or ‘ power-
ful.’ But there is no sufficient ground
for connecting it directly with the
name of the sect ’Eoonvol or ’Eocato,
as some writers are disposed to do
(e.g. Spanheim on Callim.1. ¢c., Creuzer
Symbolik Iv. pp. 347, 349); though
this view is favoured by the fact that
certain ascetic practices were enjoined
on these pagan ‘Essenes.’

2 Tts date is fixed by the following
allusions. The temple at Jerusalem

has been destroyed by Titus (vv. 122
sq.), and the cities of Campania have
been overwhelmed in fire and ashes
(vv. 127 8q.). Nero has disappeared
and his disappearance has been fol-
lowed by bloody contests in Rome (vy.
116 sq.); but his return is still ex-
pected (vv. 134 8q.).

3 See vv. 27—30 ol ynovs wey drravras
aroorpévovow idbvres, kal Bwmovs, elxata
AOwy Lpipara Kwpuv aipaciw éeupixwv
pemtacméeva Kal Ovoinor TeTpaTrddwy K.T.A.
In an earlier passage vv. 8 sq. it is
said of God, ore yap olxoy exer va®
ALOov ipvddvra Kwpdrarov vwddv Te,
Bporay modvaryéa wv.

4 ver. 160 & morapots Novcacbe Sov
Séuas devdowst. Another point of con-
tact with the Essenes is the great
stress on prayers before meals, ver. 26
evroyéovTes mply mide payee re. Ewald
(Sibyll. Biicher p. 46) points also to
the prominence of the words evceBeir,
evoeBys, evoeBla (vv. 26, 35, 42, 45,
133, 148, 181, 162, 165, 181, 183) to
designate the elect of God, as tending
in the same direction. The force of
thislatter argument will depend mainly
on the derivation which is given to the
name Essene. See below, p. 349 8q.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 97

independent development of Judaism. In some respects at
all events its language seems quite inconsistent with the purer
type of Essenism*, But its general tendency is clear: and
of its locality there can hardly be a doubt. The affairs of
Asia Minor occupy a disproportionate space in the poet's de-
scription of the past and vision of the future. The cities of
the Meander and its neighbourhood, among these Laodicea,
are mentioned with emphasis”.

And certainly the moral and intellectual atmosphere would Phrygia
not be unfavourable to the growth of such a plant. The same pie
district, which in speculative philosophy had produced a Thales pais
and a Heraclitus®, had developed in popular religion the wor- religion.
ship of the Phrygian Cybele and Sabazius and of the Ephe-
sian Artemis*. Cosmological speculation, mystic theosophy,
religious fanaticism, all had their home here. Associated with
Judaism or with Christianity the natural temperament and the

intellectual bias of the people would take a new direction;

1 Thus for instance, Ewaid (1. ¢., p.
47) points tc the tacit approval of mar-
riage in ver. 33. I hardly think however
that this passage, which merely con.-.
demns adultery, can be taken to imply
so much. More irreconcilable with pure
Essenism is the belief in the resur-
rection of the body and the future life
on earth, which is maintained in vv.
176 sq.; though Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr,
‘XIV. p. 49) does not recognise the diffi-
culty. See above p. 88. This Sibyl-
line writer was perhaps rather a He-
merobaptist than an Essene,. On the
relation of the Hemerobaptists and
Essenes see the third dissertation.
Alexandre, Orac, Sibyll. (11. p. 323),
says of this Sibylline Oracle, ‘Ipse
liber haud dubie Christianus est,’ but
there is nothing distinctly Christian
in its teaching.

2 vv. 106 sq., 145 8q.; See above p. 40,
note 2, It begins xAvGc News ’Acins be-
yaravxéos Evpwrys re.

3 The exceptional activity of the

COL.

forces of nature in these districts of
Asia Minor may have directed the
speculations of the Ionic school towards
physics, and more especially towards
cosmogony. In Heraclitus there is
also a strong mystical element. But
besides such broader affinities, I ven-
ture to call attention to special dicta of
the two philosophers mentioned in the
text, which curiously recall the tenets
of the Judw#o-Gnostic teachers. Thales
declared (Diog. Laert. i. 27) rdv xdapov
éupuxov kat darudvwv wrHjpy, OY, as re-
ported by Aristotle (de An. i. 5, p. 411),
wdvTa TAIN Oedv elvar, In a recorded
saying of Heraclitus we have the very
language of a Gnostic teacher; Clem.
Alex, Strom. v. 13, p. 699, Ta mev Tis
yvaotos Bd0n Kptrrew dmorin
aya0y, Kal’? ‘“HpdxXerrov? dmriorin yap
Siuapuyydvee TO ph ywaoxerOa. See
above pp. 77, 92.

4 For the characteristic features of
Phrygian religious worship see Steiger
Kolosser p, 79 sq. ..

|

98

Previous
results
summed

up.

Is the
Colossian
heresy
Gnostic?

Three
notes of
Gnosti-
cism.

1. Intel-
lectual
exclusive-
ness,

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

but the old type would not be altogether obliterated. Phrygia
reared the hybrid monstrosities of Ophitism*’, She was the
mother of Montanist enthusiasm’, and the foster-mother of
The syncretist, the mystic, the devotee,
the puritan, would find a congenial climate in these regions
of Asia Minor.

Novatian rigorism’*.

It has thus been shown first, that Essene Judaism was
Gnostic in its character; and secondly, that this type of Jewish
thought and practice had established itself in the Apostolic age
in those parts of Asia Minor with which we are more directly
concerned. It now remains to examine the heresy of the
Colossian Church more nearly, and to see whether it deserves
the name, which provisionally was given to it, of Gnostic
Judaism. Its Judaism all wiJl allow. Its claim to be regarded
as Gnostic will require a closer scrutiny. And in conducting
this examination, it will be convenient to take the three notes
of Gnosticism which have been already laid down, and to enquire
how far it satisfies these tests.

1. It has been pointed out that Gnosticism strove to esta-
blish, or rather to preserve, an intellectual oligarchy in religion.
It had its hidden wisdom, its exclusive mysteries, its privileged
class.

Now I think it will be evident, that St Paul in this epistle

1 The prominence, which the Phry-
gian mysteries and Phrygian rites held
in the syncretism of the Ophites, is
clear from the account of Hippolytus
Her.v.78q. Indeed Phrygia appears
to have been the proper home of Ophi-
tism. Yet the admixture of Judaic
elements is not less obvious, as the
name Naassene, derived from the He-
brew word for a serpent, shows.

2 The name, by which the Mon-
tanists were commonly known in the
early ages, was the sect of the ‘ Phry-
gians’; Clem. Strom. vii. 17, p. goo ai
dé [r&v aipécewy] ard &Ovous [mpocayo-
pevovrat], ws } Tav PpvyGv (comp. Hus.

TE. AVES 9, VN. 30; Bippy Aer, vil, -
19, X. 25). From oi (or 7) kara Ppvyds
(Hus. B. Ho i, 25, V¥. 16, 18; vi. 20)
comes the solecistic Latin name Cata-
phryges.

3 Socrates (iv. 28) accounts for the
spread of Novatianism in Phrygia by
the cwdpoctvy of the Phrygian temper.
If so, it is a striking testimony to the
power of Christianity, that under its
influence the religious enthusiasm of
the Phrygians should have taken this
direction, and that they should have
exchanged the fanatical orgiasm of
their heathen worship for the rigid
puritanism of the Novatianist.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 99

feels himself challenged to contend for the universality of the st Paul
Gospel. ‘This indeed is a characteristic feature of the Apostle’s onten’
teaching at all times, and holds an equally prominent place in ee
the epistles of an earlier date. But the point to be observed is, Gospel,
that the Apostle, in maintaining this doctrine, has changed the

mode of his defence; and this fact suggests that there has been

a change in the direction of the attack. It is no longer against
national exclusiveness, but against intellectual exclusiveness,

: that he contends.
7 restrictions, or at least do not plead these alone: but they erect
an artificial barrier of spiritual privilege, even more fatal to
the universal claims of the Gospel, because more specious and
more insidious. It is not now against the Jew as such, but
against the Jew become Gnostic, that he fights the battle of
liberty. In other words; it is not against Christian Pharisaism
but against Christian Essenism that he defends his position.
‘Only in the light of such an antagonism can we understand the

PSE

et ey Ree ie iE!

His adversaries do not now plead ceremonial

emphatic iteration with which he claims to ‘warn every man

and teach every man in every wisdom, that he may present

every man perfect in Christ Jesus’’ It will be remembered against
that ‘wisdom’ in Gnostic teaching was the exclusive possession of jt¢P™
the few; it will not be forgotten that ‘perfection’ was the term paper
especially applied in their language to this privileged minority, intellect.
as contradistinguished from the common herd of believers;

and thus it will be readily understood why St Paul should go

.on to say that this universality of the Gospel is the one object

of his contention, to which all the energies of his life are
directed, and having done so, should express his intense anxiety

for the Churches of Colossee and the neighbourhood, lest they

a

SOE ES Soe

| : should be led astray by a spurious wisdom to desert the true

knowledge*.. This danger also will enable us to appreciate a

1 i, 28 vovOeroivres rdvra dvOpwrov
Kal dudoxovres mdvtTa dvOpwrov év

mwdhoyn cogla wa mapacriowuey rdvra
wOpwrov 7éderov &v Xpiory «.7.d. The
reiteration has offended the scribes;

and the first rdvra dvOpwrov is omitted

in some copies, the second in others.
For ré\evov see the note on the passage.

2 The connexion of the sentences
should be carefully observed. After
the passage quoted in the last note
comes the asseveration that this is

7—2

TOO

He con-
trasts the
true wis-
dom with
the false,

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY,

novel feature in another passage of the epistle. While dwelling
on the obliteration of all distinctions in Christ, he repeats his
earlier contrasts, ‘Greek and Jew, ‘circumcision and uncircum-
cision,’ ‘bondslave and free’; but to these he adds new words
which at once give a wider scope and a more immediate appli-
cation to the lesson. In Christ the existence of ‘ barbarian’ and
even ‘Scythian,’ the lowest type of barbarian, is extinguished’.
As culture, civilisation, philosophy, knowledge, are no conditions
of acceptance, so neither is their absence any disqualification in
the believer... The aristocracy of intellectual discernment, which
Gnosticism upheld in religion, is abhorrent to the first principles
of the Gospel.

Hence also must be explained the frequent occurrence of
the words ‘ wisdom’ (co@/a), ‘intelligence’ (cvvecis), ‘knowledge’
(yuaors), ‘perfect knowledge?’ (ér/yvwors), in this epistle*. St
Paul takes up the language of his opponents, and translates it
into a higher sphere, The false teachers put forward a ‘ philo-
sophy,’ but it was only an empty deceit, only a plausible display
of false reasoning®*, They pretended ‘wisdom,’ but it was
merely the profession, not the reality*, Against these pretentions
the Apostle sets the true wisdom of the Gospel. On its wealth,
its fulness, its perfection, he is never tired of dwelling’ The
true wisdom, he would argue, is essentially spiritual and yet
essentially definite ; while the false 1s argumentative, is specu-

XxvOns. There is nothing correspond-
ing to this in the parallel passage,
Gal. iii. 28. |

the one object of the Apostle’s preach-
ing (i. 29) els 6 kal xowi® x.7.X.; then
the expression of concern on: behalf

of the Colossians (ii. 1) 0é\w yap tuas
eldévac HAlkov dywva exw tbrép buy
x.T.r.; then the desire that they may
be brought (ii. 2) els rdv wodros rijs
awrnpopoplas THs suvécews, eis érl-
yvwoiv Tov pvornplov Tov Ocotv; then
the definition of this mystery (ii. 2, 3),
Xpisrov év @ elaly ravres ol Onoavpol
k.7..3; then the warning against the
false teachers (ii, 4) toro Aéyw wa
pindels Suds maparoylinrat K.T.X.

1 Col. iii, rz after mepirouh kal
éxooBuvorla the Anostle adds BépS8apos,

2 For codla see i. g, 28, ii. 3, ili. 16,
iv. 5; for c’veois i. 9, ii. 23 for yusiors
il,. 33) for éxtyowets 1,0), 10, i. 2;
Hi 1s

3 ii. 4 wiBavoroyla, li. 8 Kevh darn.

4 ii, 23 Adyov mwev éexovra codlas,
where the nev suggests the contrast
of the suppressed clause.

5 9.g. 1. 9, 28, il. 16 & macy
cogig; li. 2 THs mAnpopopias. For the
‘wealth’ of this knowledge compare
i. 27, ii. 2, iii, 163; and see above
P. 44. |

ee cag ns OR RE NV Rg ee a aor
:. —— nd c Pe in =n all

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. IOT

lative, is vague and dreamy*. Again they had their rites of

initiation. St Paul contrasts with these the one universal, com- and dwells
on the veri- ’

prehensive mystery’, the knowledge of God in Christ. This table mys-

mystery is complete in itself: it contains ‘all the treasures of

wisdom and of knowledge hidden’ in it®, Moreover it is offered

to all without distinction: though once hidden, its revelation is

unrestricted, except by the waywardness and disobedience of

men. ‘The esoteric spirit of Gnosticism finds no countenance in

the Apostle’s teaching.

2. From the informing spirit of Gpeptignenn we turn to the : _ Speen:
atlve

"speculative tenets—the cosmogony and the theology of the tenets,

Cosmo-
Gnostic. otter aie

And here too the affinities to Gnosticism reveal themselves theology.
in the Colossian heresy. We cannot fail to observe that the
Apostle has in view the doctrine of intermediate agencies, re- St Paul
garded as instruments in the creation and government of the 9c the
world. Though this tenet is not distinctly mentioned, it is cope ele
tacitly assumed in the teaching which St Paul opposes to it.
Against the philosophy of successive evolutions from the Divine
nature, angelic mediators forming the successive links in the
chain which binds the finite to the Infinite, he sets the doctrine
of the one Eternal Son, the Word of God begotten before the setting
worlds*. The angelology of the heretics had a twofold bearing ; 2st *

§ > the doe-

it was intimately connected at once with cosmogony and with pefand e-a en
religion. Correspondingly St Paul represents the mediatorial carnate,
function of Christ as twofold: it is exercised in the natural
creation, and it is exercised in the spiritual creation. In both

these spheres His initiative is absolute, His control is universal,

His action is complete. By His agency the world of matter was

created and is sustained. He is at once the beginning and the

ail Ay TOs

2 i. 26, 24, ii. 2, iv. 3.

3 ii. 2 év G eioly mdvres of Onoavpol
Tis copias Kal Tis yowoews drbxpupot.
For the meaning of dréxpuda see above
p- 90, and the note on the passage.

4 The two great Christological pas-

Sages are i. 15—20, li. g—15. They
will be found to justify the statements
in this and the following paragraphs
of the text. For the meaning of in-
dividual expressions see the notes on
the passages.

102 THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

end of the material universe; ‘All things have been created
through Him and unto Him.’ Nor is His office in the spiritual
as the re- world less complete. In the Church, as in the Universe, He is
anata . sole, absolute, supreme ; the primary source from which all life
and earth. yroceeds and the ultimate arbiter in whom all feuds are reconciled.
oe se . On the one hand, in relation to Deity, He is the visible
(r) Deity; Image of the invisible God. He is not only the chief manifes-
at tation of the Divine nature: He exhausts the Godhead mani-
fested. fested. In Him resides the totality of the Divine powers and
attributes. For this totality Gnostic teachers had a technical
The plero- term, the pleroma or plenitude’. From the pleroma they sup-
Higher posed that all those agencies issued, through which God has at
any time exerted His power in creation, or manifested His will
through revelation. These mediatorial beings would retain more
or less of its influence, according as they claimed direct parentage
from it or traced their descent through successive evolutions.
But in all cases this pleroma was distributed, diluted, transformed
and darkened by foreign admixture. They were only partial and
blurred images, often deceptive caricatures, of their original,
broken lights of the great central Light. It is not improbable
that, like later speculators of the same school, they found a place
somewhere or other in their genealogy of spiritual beings for
the Christ. If so, St Paul’s language becomes doubly signifi-
cant. But this hypothesis is not needed to explain its reference.
In contrast to their doctrine, he asserts and repeats the asser-
tion, that the pleroma abides absolutely and wholly in Christ
as the Word of God*. The entire light is concentrated in
Him.
(2) Created Hence it follows that, as regards created things, His supre-
pcre ““macy must be absolute. In heaven as in earth, over things
Lord. immaterial as over things material, He is king. Speculations on
the nature of intermediate spiritual agencies—their names, their

ranks, their offices—were rife in the schools of Judeeo-Gnostic

1 See the detached note on md7- = rAjpwua KatoKfoa, ii. g &v adr@ Ka-
pwd, Torkel Wav TO TAYPwWUA THS Oebryros Tw-
2 i, 19 & atrgG evddxnoey wav 7d pariKds.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 103

thought. ‘Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers’—
these formed part of the spiritual nomenclature which they had
invented to describe different grades of angelic mediators.
Without entering into these speculations, the Apostle asserts
that Christ is Lord of all, the highest and the lowest, what-
ever rank they may hold and by whatever name they are
called’, for they are parts of creation and He is the source of
creation. Through Him they became, and unto Him they
tend.

Hence the worship of angels, which the false teachers incul- Angelola-
cated, was utterly wrong in principle. The motive of this ithe
angelolatry it is not difficult to imagine. There was a show of pe ayes vot
humility*, for there was a confession of weakness, in this sub-
servience to inferior mediatorial agencies, It was held: feasible
to grasp at the lower links of the chain which bound earth
to heaven, when heaven itself seemed far beyond the reach
of man. The successive grades of intermediate beings were
as successive steps, by which man might mount the ladder
leading up to the throne of God. This carefully woven web
of sophistry the Apostle tears to shreds. The doctrine of the
false teachers was based on confident assumptions respecting
angelic beings of whom they could know nothing. It was
moreover a denial of Christ’s twofold personality and His
mediatorial office. It follows from the true conception. of as a denial
Christ’s Person, that He and He alone can bridge over the pala
chasm between earth and heaven; for He is at once the lowest #9"
and the highest. He raises up man to God, for He brings down
God to man. Thus the chain is reduced to a single link,
this link being the Word made flesh. As the pleroma resides.
in Him, so is it communicated to us through Him*®. To sub-
stitute allegiance to any other spiritual mediator is to sever

1 See especially i. 16 etre @pévoe Compare also ii1o § Kedah mdons
elre Kuptéryres elre apxal eire géovolac dps Kal éfovolas, and ii. 15 drexducd-
k.7.d., compared with the parallel pas- —evos tds dpxds Kat Tas éfovolas K.T.ds
sage in Eph. i. 21 vrepavw wdons apxfs 2 ii, 18 Oéd\ov & rarevodpocivyn Kai
kal éfovolas kat duvduews kal kupidryros Opnoxelg Trav dyyédwv K.-T. X.
kal mavTos dvomatos dvomagomévou k.T.X. 3 ii, 10; comp. i, 9.

104

The Apo-
stle’s prac-
tical infer-
ence.

3. Moral
results of
Gnostic
doctrine.

Asceticism
of the Co-
lossian
heresy

THK COLOSSIAN HERESY.

the connexion of the limbs with the Head, which is the centre
of life and the mainspring of all energy throughout the body’.

Hence follows the practical conclusion, that, whatever is
done, must be done in the name of the Lord’. Wives must
submit to their husbands ‘in the Lord’: children must obey
their parents ‘in the Lord’: servants must work for their mas-
ters as working ‘unto the Lord*” This iteration, ‘in the Lord,’
‘unto the Lord,’ is not an irrelevant form of words; but arises
as an immediate inference from the main idea which under-
lies the doctrinal portion of the epistle.

3. It has been shown that the speculative tenets of Gnos-
ticism might lead (and as a matter of fact we know that
they did lead) to either of two practical extremes, to rigid
asceticism or to unbridled license. The latter alternative ap-
pears to some extent in the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles *
and still more plainly in those of the Catholic Epistles’ and
the Apocalypse’. It is constantly urged by Catholic writers as
a reproach against later Gnostic sects’.

But the former and nobler extreme was the first impulse
of the Gnostic. To escape from the infection of evil -by escap-
ing from the domination of matter was his chief anxiety. This
appears very plainly in the Colossian heresy. Though the pro-
hibitions to which the Apostle alludes might be explained in
part by the ordinances of the Mosaic ritual, this explanation
will not cover all the facts. Thus for instance drinks are

mentioned as well as meats*, though on the former the law

of Moses is silent. Thus again the rigorous denunciation, ‘Touch
not, taste not, handle not®? seems to go very far beyond the
hevitical enactments. And moreover the motive of these pro-

Pts. iv. 2 the ascetic tendency still pre-
ee OD dominates.
oll. 45, 20,23: 5 2 Pet. il. 10 sq., Jude 8,

4 At least in 2 Tim. iii. 1—7, where, 6 Apoe. ii. 14, 20—22.

though the most monstrous develop- 7 See the notes on Clem. Rom. Lp.

ments of the evil were still future, ii. § 9.
the Apostle’s language implies that it oo7, 10:
had already begun. On the other hand ait Bae
in the picture of the heresy in 1 Tim.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 105

hibitions is Essene rather than Pharisaic, Gnostic rather than not ex-
Jewish. These severities of discipline were intended ‘to check its Juan ay
indulgence of the flesh’? They professed to treat the body #*™-
with entire disregard, to ignore its cravings and to deny its

wants. In short they betray a strong ascetic tendency’, of

which normal Judaism, as represented by the Pharisee, offers

no explanation.

And St Paul’s answer points to the same inference. The St Paul’s

difference will appear more plainly, if we compare it with his ised its
treatment of Pharisaic Judaism in the Galatian Church. This roti
epistle offers nothing at all corresponding to his language on
that occasion; ‘If righteousness be by law, then Christ died
in vain’; ‘If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you no-
thing’; ‘Christ is nullified for you, whosoever are justified by
law; yeare fallen from grace*’ The point of view in fact is
wholly changed. With these Essene or Gnostic Judaizers the
Mosaic law was neither the motive nor the standard, it was only
the starting point, of their austerities. Hence in replying the
_ Apostle no longer deals with law, as law; he no longer points It is no
the contrast of grace and works; but he enters upon the moral ern
aspects of these ascetic practices. He denounces them, as con- paid
centrating the thoughts on earthly and perishable things’.
He points out that they fail in their purpose, and are found
valueless against carnal indulgences’, In their place he offers
the true and only remedy against sin—the elevation of the
inner life in Christ, the transference of the affections into a
higher sphere®, where the temptations of the flesh are powerless.
Thus dying with Christ, they will kill al/ their earthly mem-
bers’. Thus rising with Christ, they will be renewed in the
image of God their Creator*®.

1 ii. 23.

2 Asceticism is of two kinds. There
is the asceticism of dualism (whether
conscious or unconscious) which springs
from a false principle; and there is the
asceticism of self-discipline, which is
the training of the Christian athlete
(1 Cor, ix. 27). I need not say that the

remarks in the text oe only to the
former.

3 Gal. ii. 21, v. 2, 4.

4 ii, 8, 20—22.

5 il, 23 od« &v Ting Tul rpds TANT MO-
viv THs capKds: see the note on these.
words. 6 iii. r, 2,

a a a 8 iii. 10,

106 THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

The truth In attempting to draw a complete portrait of the Colossian
er ae heresy from a few features accidentally exhibited in St Paul’s

a tested epistle, it has been necessary to supply certain links; and
some assurance may not unreasonably be required that this
has not been done arbitrarily. Nor is this security wanting.
In all such cases the test will be twofold. The result must
be consistent with itself: and it must do no violence to the
historical conditions under which the phenomena arose.

(1) Tts in- I. In the present instance the former of these tests is fully

herent satisfied. The consistency and the symmetry of the result is

consisten- .

eyand its great recommendation. The postulate of a Gnostic type

iat brings the separate parts of the representation into direct con-
nexion. The speculative opinions and the practical tenden-
cies of the heresy thus explain, and are explained by, each
other. It is analogous to thie hypothesis of the comparative
anatomist, who by referring the fossil remains to their proper
type restores the whole skeleton of some unknown animal from
a few bones belonging to different extremities of the body, and
without the intermediate and connecting parts. In the one case,
.as in the other, the result is the justification of the postulate.

(2) Its 2. And again; the historical conditions of the problem

“

piace ™@ are carefully observed. It has been shown already, that Ju-
sequence. daism in the preceding age had in one of its developments
assumed a form which was the natural precursor of the Colos-
sian heresy. In order to complete the argument it will be
necessary to show that Christianity in the generation next suc-
ceeding exhibited a perverted type, which was its natural out-
growth. If this can be done, the Colossian heresy will take

its proper place in a regular historical sequence.

Continu- I have already pointed out that the language of St John

ie sos in the Apocalypse, which was probably written within a few

of Jucwo- years of this epistle, seems to imply the continuance in this
cisminthe district of the same type of heresy which is here denounced

as by St Paul’. But the notices in this book are not more de-

1 See above p. 41 sq.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 107

finite than those of the Epistle to the Colossians itself; ‘and «
we are led to look outside the Canonical writings for some
more explicit evidence. Has early Christian history then pre-
served any record of a distinctly Gnostic school existing on the
confines of the Apostolic age, which may be considered a, legiti-
mate development of the phase of religious speculation that
confronts us here ?

We find exactly the phenomenon which we are seeking in Heresy of
the heresy of Cerinthus’*. The time, the place, the circum- wares
stances, all agree. This heresiarch is said to have been origin-
ally a native of Alexandria’; but proconsular Asia is allowed His date
on all hands to have been the scene of his activity as a ae
teacher*. He lived and taught at the close of the Apostolic
age, that is, in the latest decade of the first century. Some —
writers indeed make him an antagonist of St Peter and St
Paul*, but their authority is not trustworthy, nor is this very
early date at all probable. But there can be no reasonable
doubt that he was a contemporary of St John, who was related
by Polycarp to have denounced him face to face on one me-
morable occasion’, and is moreover said by Ireneus to have
written his Gospel with the direct object of confuting his errors’®.

Semana =

a

7 a

1 The relation of Cerinthus to the
Colossian heresy is briefly indicated
by Neander Planting of . Christianity
I. p. 325 8q. (Eng. Trans.) It has
been remarked by other writers also,
both earlier and later. The subject
appears to me to deserve a fuller
investigation than it has yet re-
ceived,

2 Hippol. Her. vii. 33 Alyurriwv
madelg aoxnOels, x. 21 6 év Alyirrp
doxnbels, Theodoret. Her. Fab. ii. 3 év
Alytirrw mreloror Siarplyas xpdvov.

3 Tren. i. 26. 1 ‘et Cerinthus autem
quidam...in Asia docuit,’ Epiphan.
Her, xxviii. 1 éyévero 5¢ odros 6 K7f-
pw0os é&v. rH “Acla diarpiBwv, Kdxetce
TOU KnpiymaTos Thy apxhv mwemonuévos,
Theodoret. 1. c. torepov eis tiv ’Aciav
adlxero. The. scene of his encounter

with St John in the bath is placed at
Ephesus: see below, note 5.

4 Epiphanius (xxviii. 2 sq.) repre-
sents him as the ringleader of the
Judaizing opponents of the Apostles
in the Acts and Epistles to the Co-
rinthians and Galatians. Philastrius
(Her. 36) takes the same line.

5 The well-known story of the en-
counter between St John and Cerinthus
in the bath is related by Irenzus
(iii. 3. 4) on the authority of Polycarp,
who appears from the sequence of
Ireneus’ narrative to have told it at
Rome, when he paid his visit to Ani-
cetus ; ds Kal éml “Avixnrov émidnunoas
TH Po&uy moddods. dro Trav mpoepnudvav
aiperixav éréotpepev...kal eiciv of dxn-

Koores avrod bre Iwdvyns K.7.d.

6 Tren. iii: rr. r.

108

Cerinthus
a link be-
tween Ju-
daism and
Gnosti-
cism.

Judaism
still pro-
minent in
his system

though
Gnosti-
cism is
already
ageressive.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

‘Cerinthus,’ writes Neander, ‘is best entitled to be con-
sidered as the intermediate link between the Judaizing and
the Gnostic sects.’ ‘Even among the ancients,’ he adds, ‘ opposite
reports respecting his doctrines have been given from opposite
points of view, according as the Gnostic or the Judaizing element
was exclusively insisted upon: and the dispute on this point
has been kept up even to modern times. In point of chro-
nology too Cerinthus may be regarded as representing the prin-
ciple in its transition from Judaism to Gnosticism’.’

Of his Judaism no doubt has been or can be entertained.
The gross Chiliastic- doctrine ascribed to him’, even though
it may have been exaggerated in the representations of ad-
verse writers, can only be explained by a Jewish origin. His
conception of the Person of Christ was Ebionite, that is Judaic,
in its main features*. He is said moreover to have enforced
the rite of circumcision and to have inculcated the observance
of sabbaths*. It is related also that the Cerinthians, like the
Ebionites, accepted the Gospel of St Matthew alone’.

At the same time, it is said by an ancient writer that his
adherence to Judaism was only partial’. This limitation is
doubtless correct. As Gnostic principles asserted themselves
more distinctly, pure Judaism necessarily suffered. All or nearly
all the early Gnostic heresies were Judaic; and for a time a
compromise was effected which involved more or less concession
on either side. But the ultimate incompatibility of the two
at length became evident, and a precarious alliance was ex-
changed for an open antagonism. This final result however
was not reached till the middle of the second century: and
meanwhile it was a question to what extent Judaism was pre-

1 Church History 1. p. 42 (Bohn’s
Trans.).

2 See the Dialogue of Gaius and
Proclus in Euseb. H. #. iii. 28, Dio-
nysius of Alexandria, ib. vil. 25, Theo-
doret. 1. c., Augustin. Her. 8.

3 See below p. 111.

4 Tpiphan. Her. xxviii. 4, 5, Phi-
lastr. Her. 36, Augustin. l.e. The

statements of these writers would not
carry much weight insthemselves; but
in this instance they are rendered
highly probable by the known Judaism
of Cerinthus.

5 Epiphan. Her. xxviii. 5, xxx. 14,
Philastr. Her. 36.

6 Kpiphan. Har. xxviii. 1 mpocéxew
T@ lovdatsug dao udpous.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY, 109g

pared to make concessions for the sake of this new ally. Even

the Jewish Essenes, as we have seen, departed from the ortho-

dox position in the matter of sacrifices; and if we possessed

fuller information, we should probably find that they made

still larger concessions than this, Of the Colossian heretics

we can only form a conjecture, but the angelology and an-
gelolatry attributed to them point to a further step in the

same direction. As we pass from them to Cerinthus we are

no longer left in doubt; for the Gnostic element has clearly Gnostic _
gained the ascendant, though it has not yet driven its rival Hei fess
out of the field. Two characteristic features in his teaching ing.
especially deserve consideration, both as evincing the tendency

of his speculations and as throwing back light on the notices

in the Colossian Epistle.

1. His cosmogony is essentially Gnostic. The great pro- 1. His
ne . site «4 Gnostic

blem of creation presented itself to him in the same aspect; Cosmo-

and the solution which he offered was generically the same. ®°”Y

The world, he asserted, was not made by the highest God,

but by an angel or power far removed from, and ignorant of,

this Supreme Being*. Other authorities describing his sys-

tem speak not of a single power, but of powers, as creating

the universe’: but all alike represent this demiurge, or these

1 Tren. i. 26. 1 ‘Non a primo Deo
factum esse mundum docuit, sed a
virtute quadam valde separata et dis-
tante ab ea principalitate que est su-
per universa, et ignorante eum qui est
super omnia Deum’; Hippol. Her. vii.
33 Edeyev odx Urd TOD mpwrov Oeod vye-
ryovévat Tov Kécpov, GAN’. bd Suvdpews
Twos Kexwpiopevyns Tis bmrép Ta Ba e£ov-
alas Kal dyvoovor%s Tov brép mdvra Gedy,
xX. 21 Umd Suvdueds Twos dyyedKfs,
worn Kexwpicuévys Kal duecrwons Tis
Umép TX Sha avGevrias Kal dyvoovons Tov
Umép mavra Ocdv.

2 Pseudo-Tertull. Her. 3 ‘Carpocra-
tes prwterea hanc tulit sectam: Unam
esse dicit virtutem in superioribus
principalem, ex nac prolatos angelos

atque virtutes, quos distantes longe a
superioribus virtutibus mundum istum
in inferioribus partibus condidisse...
Post hune Cerinthus hereticus erupit,
similia docens. Nam et ipse mundum
institutum esse ab illis dicit’; Epi-
phan. Her, xxviii. 1 &va, elvar rev dyyé-
Awy Tay Tov Kbopov Temoinkdtwv ; Theo-
doret. H. F. ii. 3 &va pev elvar tov row
brwv Gedy, ok abrdv 6é elvar Tod Kocpov
Snucoupyov, aGAd Suvdwes Tivds Kexyw-
picuévas Kal mavTedws avrov dyvoovcas ;
Augustin. Her.8. The one statement
is quite reconcilable with the other.
Among those angels by whose instru-
mentality the world was created, Ce-
rinthus appears to have assigned a
position of preeminence to one, whom

IIO THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

demiurges, as ignorant of the absolute God. It is moreover
stated that he held the Mosaic law to have been given not
by the supreme God Himself, but by this angel, or one of
these angels, who created the world’.
and conse. From these notices it is plain that angelology had an im-
eg portant place in his speculations; and that he employed it
to explain the existence of evil supposed to be inherent in
the physical world, as well as to account for the imperfections
of the old dispensation. The ‘remote distance’ of his angelic
demiurge from the supreme God can hardly be explained ex-
cept on the hypothesis of successive generations of these inter-
mediate agencies. Thus his solution is thoroughly Gnostic.
At the same time, as contrasted with later and more sharply
defined Gnostic systems, the Judaic origin and complexion of
his cosmogony is obvious. His intermediate agencies still re-
tain the name and the personality of angels, and have not
yet given way to those vague idealities which, as emanations
Angels of or eons, took their place in later speculations. Thus his theory
anes nd is linked on to the angelology of later Judaism founded on
7 ae the angelic appearances recorded in the Old Testament nar-
rative. And again: while later Gnostics represent the demi-
urge and giver of the law as antagonistic to the supreme and
good God, Cerinthus does not go beyond postulating his igno-
rance. He went as far as he could without breaking entirely
with the Old Testament and abandoning his Judaic standing-

ground.
Cerinthus In these respects Cerinthus is the proper link between the
alink be- . .. : 1 : :
tween the Icipient gnosis of the Colossian heretics and the mature

eas gnosis of the second century. In the Colossian epistle we

laterGnos- still breathe the atmosphere of Jewish angelology, nor is there

ticism. ecient) tp : :
any trace of the won of later Gnosticism*; while yet speculation
is so far advanced that the angels have an important function

he regarded as the demiurge in a Her, xxviii. 4 rov deSwxdra vopuov eva

special sense and under whom the clym riav ayyé\wy rey Tov KoopoV Te-

others worked; see Neander Church monxdrwv.

History u. p. 43. 2I am quite unable to see any
1 Pgeudo-Tertull. 1. c.; Epiphan. reference to the Gnostic conception of

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. Ait

in explaining the mysteries of the creation and government

of the world. On the other ‘hand it has not reached the
point at which we find it in Cerinthus. Gnostic conceptions
respecting the relation of the demiurgic agency to the supreme
God would appear to have passed through three stages.* This.
relation was represented first, as imperfect appreciation; next,

as entire ignorance; lastly, as direct antagonism. The second
and third are the standing points of Cerinthus and of the later
Gnostic teachers respectively. The first was probably the
position of the Colossian false teachers. The imperfections

of the natural world, they would urge, were due to the limited
capacities of these angels to whom the demiurgic work was
committed, and to their imperfect sympathy with the Supreme
God; but at the same time they might fitly receive, worship

as’ mediators between God and man; and indeed humanity
seemed in its weakness to need the intervention of some such
beings less remote from itself than the highest heaven.

2. Again the Christology of Cerinthus deserves attention 2. His
: . : “8 Christo-

from this point of view. Here all our authorities are agreed. jogy.
As a Judaizer Cerinthus held with the Ebionites that Jesus
was only the son of Joseph and Mary, born in the natural way.

As a Gnostic he maintained that the Christ first descended in

the form of a dove on the carpenter’s son at his baptism; that

He revealed to him the unknown Father, and worked miracles
through him: and that at length He took His flight and left
him, so that Jesus alone suffered and rose, while the Christ

remained impassible’.

an @on in the passages of the New
Testament, which are sometimes quoted
in support of this view, e.g., by Baur
Paulus p. 428, Burton Lectures p. 111
sq.

1 Tren. i. 26. 1, Hippol. Her. vii.
33, X- 21, Epiphan, Her. xxviii. 1,
,Theodoret. H. F. ii. 3. The argu-
ments by which Lipsius (Gnosticismus
pp. 245, 258, in Ersch u. Gruber;
Quellenkritik des Epiphanios. p. 118

It would appear also, though this is

sq.) attempts to show that Cerinthus
did not separate the Christ from
Jesus, and that Irenzus (and subse-
quent authors copying him) have
wrongly attributed to this heretic the
theories of later Gnostics, seem insuf-
ficient to outweigh these direct state-
ments. It is more probable that the
system of Cerinthus should have ad-
mitted some foreign elements not very
consistent with his Judaic standing

Approach
towards
Cerinthian
Christo-
logy in the
Colossian
heresy.

THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

not certain, that he described this re-ascension of the Christ as
a return ‘to His own pleroma’’

Now it is not clear from St Paul’s language what opinions
the Colossian heretics held respecting the person of our Lord;
but we may safely assume that he regarded them as inadequate
and derogatory. The emphasis, with which he asserts the
eternal being and absolute sovereignty of Christ, can hardly be
explained in any other way. But individual expressions tempt
us to conjecture that the same ideas were already floating in
the air, which ultimately took form and consistency in the
tenets of Cerinthus. Thus, when he reiterates the statement
that the whole pleroma abides permanently in Christ’, he
would appear to be tacitly refuting some opinion which main-
tained only mutable and imperfect relations between the two.
When again he speaks of the true gospel first taught to the
Colossians as the doctrine of ‘the Christ, even Jesus the Lord’*,
his language might seem to be directed against the tendency
to separate the heavenly Christ from the earthly Jesus, as
though the connexion were only transient. When lastly he
dwells on the work of reconciliation, as wrought ‘through the
blood of Christ’s cross? ‘in the body of His flesh through
death*? we may perhaps infer that he already discerned a
disposition to put aside Christ’s passion as a stumbling-block
Thus regarded, the

in the way of philosophical religion.

point, than that these writers should
have been misinformed. Inconsistency
was @ necessary condition of Judaic
Gnosticism. The point however is
comparatively unimportant as affect-
ing my main purpose.

1 Treneus (iii. rr. 1), after speaking
of Cerinthus, the Nicolaitans, and
others, proceeds ‘non, quemadmodum
illi dicunt, alterum quidem fabricatorem
(i.e. demiurgum), alium autem Patrem
Domini: et alium quidem fabricatoris
filium, alterum vero de superioribus
Christum, quem et impassibilem per-
severasse, descendentem in Jesum
filium fabricatoris, et iterum revolasse

in suum pleroma.’ The doctrine is pre-
cisely that which he has before as-
cribed to Cerinthus (i. 26. 1), but the
mode of statement may have been
borrowed from the Nicolaitans or the
Valentinians or some other later Gnos-
ics. There is however no improbabi-
lity in the supposition that Cerinthus
used the word pleroma in this way. See
the detached note on rA7jpwua below.

2 4, 19, ii. g. See above p. 102, note 2.
On the foree of xataxety see the note
on the earlier of the two passages.

3 ii. 6 mapehdBere Tov Xpiorov, “Ty-
coov Tov Kiupiov.

$°3,720-4¢,. =

ee

. THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. 113
i Apostle’s language gains force and point; though no stress can

5: be laid on explanations which are so largely conjectural.

i But if so, the very generality of his language shows that The Gnos-

. these speculations were still vague and fluctuating. The dif- Heism of

___ ference which separates these heretics from Cerinthus may be ect
h measured by the greater precision and directness in the Apo- undeve-
. stolic counter-statement, as we turn from the Epistle to the Pe
Colossians to the Gospel of St John. In this interval, extend-
: ing over nearly a quarter of a century, speculation has taken
a definite shape. The elements of Gnostic theory, which
were before held in solution, had meanwhile crystallized around
the facts of the Gospel. Yet still we seem justified, even at
the earlier date, in speaking of these general ideas as Gnostic,
guarding ourselves at the same time against misunderstanding
with the twofold caution, that we here employ the term to
express the simplest and most elementary conceptions of this
tendency of thought, and that we do not postulate its use as a
distinct designation of any sect or sects at this early date.
Thus limited, the view that the writer of this epistle is com-
bating a Gnostic heresy seems free from all objections, while it
appears necessary to explain his language; and certainly it
does not, as is sometimes imagined, place any weapon in the
hands of those who would assail the early date and Apostolic
authorship of the epistle.

COL. 8

Itt.

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

Theunder- ¥ ¥ /ITHOUT the preceding investigation the teaching of this
neta W epistle would be very imperfectly understood; for its
necessary. direction was necessarily determined by the occasion which gave
| rise to it. Only when we have once grasped the nature of
the doctrine which St Paul is combating, do we perceive that
every sentence is instinct with life and meaning.
The errors We have seen that the error of the heretical teachers was
Eee twofold. They had a false conception in theology, and they had
sien false basis of morals. It has been pointed out also, that these
root, two were closely connected together, and had their root in the
same fundamental error, the idea of matter as the abode of evil
and thus antagonistic to God.
So.the As the two elements of the heretical doctrine were derived
Pera te from the same source, so the reply to both was sought by the
the same Apostle in the same idea, the conception of the Person of Christ
truth, :
as the one absolute mediator between God and man, the true
and only reconciler. of heaven and earth.

But though they are thus ultimately connected, yet it will
be necessary for the fuller understanding of St Paul’s position
to take them apart, and to consider first the theological and
then the ethical teaching of the epistle.

1. The 1. This Colossian heresy was no coarse and vulgar develop-
ae ment of falsehood. It soared far above the Pharisaic Judaism

ofthe which St Paul refutes in the Epistle to the Galatians. The

heretics. f ; ie 7 .
questions in which it was interested lie at the very root of our

——S
OIE ts a

a EES
Se aT tee
ee >

=
Se ee

<=

Wael Pd
See.

ee

ee
—F.
ae

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. II5

religious consciousness. The impulse was given to its specu- Its lofty
lations by an overwhelming sense of the unapproachable ce
majesty of God, by an instinctive recognition of the chasm
which separates God from man, from the world, from matter.

Its energy was sustained by the intense yearning after some
mediation which might bridge over this chasm, might establish
inter-communion between the finite and the Infinite. Up to

this point it was deeply religious in the best sense of the term.

The answer which it gave to these questions we have but com-
already seen. In two respects this answer failed signally. On ay
the one hand it was drawn from the atmosphere of mystical
speculation. It had no foundation in history, and made no
appeal to experience. On the other hand, notwithstanding
its complexity, it was unsatisfactory in its results; for in this
plurality of mediators none was competent to meet the require-
ments of the case. God here and man there—no angel or
spirit, whether one or more, being neither God nor man, could
truly reconcile the two. Thus as regards credentials it was
without a guarantee; while as regards efficiency it was wholly
inadequate. :

The Apostle ied out to the Colossians a more excellent The
way. It was the one purpose of Christianity to satisfy those seal ei

answer
very yearnings which were working in their hearts, to solve trabigs
that very problem which had exercised their minds. In Christ of Christ.
they would find the answer which they sought. His life—His

cross and resurrection—was the guarantee; His Person—the The me-
Word Incarnate—was the solution, He alone filled up, He sie Geeta
alone could fill up, the void which lay between God and man, $74 "4
could span the gulf which separated the Creator and creation.

This solution offered by the Gospel is as simple as it is ade-

quate. To their cosmical speculations, and to their religious
yearnings alike, Jesus Christ is the true answer. In the
World, as in the Church, He is the one only mediator, the one

only reconciler. This twofold idea runs like a double thread
through the fabric of the Apostle’s teaching in those passages

of the epistle where he is describing the Person of Christ.

§—2

116

(i) In the
Universe.

Impor-
tance of

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

It will be convenient for the better understanding of St
Paul’s teaching to consider these two aspects of Christ’s me-
diation apart—its function in the natural and in the spiritual
order respectively.

(i) The heresy of the Colossian teachers took its rise, as
we saw, In their cosmical speculations. It was therefore natural
that the Apostle in replying should lay stress on the function
of the Word in the creation and government of the world.
This is the aspect of His work most prominent in the first
of the two distinctly Christological passages. The Apostle
there predicates of the Word, not only prior, but absolute
existence. All things were created through Him, are sustained
in Him, are tending towards Him. Thus He is the begin-
ning, middle, and end, of creation. This He is, because He
is the very image of the Invisible God, because in Him dwells
the plenitude of Deity.

This creative and administrative work of Christ the Word

this aspect 1 the natural order of things is always emphasized in the

of the
Person of
Christ,

writings of the Apostles, when they touch upon the doctrine
of His Person. It stands in the forefront of the prologue to
St John’s Gospel: it is hardly less prominent in the opening
of the Epistle to the Hebrews. His mediatorial function in the
Church is represented as flowing from His mediatorial func-
tion in the world. With ourselves this idea has retired very
much into the background. Though in the creed common
to all the Churches we profess our belief in Him, as the
Being ‘through whom all things were created,’ yet in reality
this confession seems to exercise very little influence on our
thoughts. And the loss is serious. How much our theological
conceptions suffer in breadth and fulness by the neglect, a
moment’s reflexion will show. How much more hearty would be
the sympathy of theologians with the revelations of science and
the developments of history, if they habitually connected them
with the operation of the same Divine Word who is the centre
of all their religious aspirations, it is needless to say. Through
the recognition of this idea with all the consequences which

> ae

CHAKACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 117

flow from it, as a living influence, more than in any other way,
may we hope to strike the chords of that ‘vaster music,’ which
results only from the harmony of knowledge and faith, of rever-
ence and research.

It will be said indeed, that this conception leaves un- notwith- ©

touched the philosophical difficulties which beset the subject ; cifioaltics
that creation still remains as much a mystery as before, Yt 0)"
This may be allowed. But is there any reason to think that
with our present limited capacities the veil which shrouds it
ever will be or can be removed? The metaphysical specula-
tions of twenty-five centuries have done nothing to raise it.
The physical investigations of our own age from their very
nature can do nothing; for, busied with the evolution of phe-
nomena, they lie wholly outside this question, and do not even
touch the fringe of the difficulty. But meanwhile revelation
has interposed and thrown out the idea, which, if it leaves
many questions unsolved, gives a breadth and unity to our
conceptions, at once satisfying our religious needs and linking
our scientific instincts with our theological beliefs. :

(ii) But, if Christ’s mediatorial office in the physical crea- io Rote
tion was the starting point of the Apostle’s teaching, His
mediatorial office in the spiritual creation is its principal theme.

The cosmogonies of the false teachers were framed not so
much in the interests of philosophy as in the interests of re-
ligion; and the Apostle replies to them in the same spirit
and with the same motive. If the function of Christ is unique
in the Universe, so is it also in the Church. He is the sole Its abso-
and absolute link between God and humanity. Nothing short cibsipi
of His personality would suffice as a medium of reconcilia-
tion between the two. Nothing short of His life and work
in the flesh, as consummated in His passion, would serve as
an assurance of God’s love and pardon. His cross is the atone-
ment of mankind with God. He is the Head with whom
all the living members of the body are in direct and imme-
diate communication, who suggests their manifold activities
to each, who directs their several functions in subordination

—=—

118

Hence
angelic
media-
tions are
funda-
mentally
wrong.

Christ’s
mediation
in the
Church
justified
by His
mediation
in the
World,

Relation
of the
doctrine of
the Word

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

to the healthy working of the whole, from whom they indi-
vidually receive their inspiration and their strength.

And being all this He cannot consent to share His prero-
gative with others. He absorbs in Himself the whole function
of mediation. Through Him alone, without any interposing
link of communication, the human soul has access to the
Father. Here was the true answer to those deep yearnings after
spiritual communion with God, which sought, and could not
find, satisfaction in the manifold and fantastic creations of a
dreamy mysticism. The worship of angels might have the
semblance of humility; but it was in fact a contemptuous
defiance of the fundamental idea of the Gospel, a flat denial
of the absolute character of Christ's Person and office. It
was a severance of the proper connexion with the Head, an
amputation of the disordered limb, which was thus disjoined
from the source of life and left to perish for want of spiritual
nourishment.

The language of the New Testament writers is beset with
difficulties, so long as we conceive of our Lord only in con-
nexion with the Gospel revelation: but, when with the Apo-
stles we realise in Him the same Divine Word who is and
ever has been the light of the whole world, who before Chris-
tianity wrought first in mankind at large through the avenues
of the conscience, and afterwards more particularly in the Jews
through a special though still imperfect revelation, then all
these difficulties fall away. Then we understand the signifi-
cance, and we recognise the truth, of such passages as these:
‘No man cometh unto the Father, but by me’: ‘There is no
salvation in any other’; ‘He that disbelieveth the Son shall
not see life, but the wrath of God abideth upon him’’ The
exclusive claims advanced in Christ’s name have their full and
perfect justification in the doctrine of the Eternal Word.

The old dispensation is primarily the revelation of the abso-
lute sovereignty of God. It vindicates this truth against two
opposing forms of error, which in their extreme types are repre-

1 Joh, xiv. 6, Acts iv. 12, Joh. iii-s 36.

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 11g
sented by Pantheism and Manicheism respectively. The Pan- to the mo-
notheism

theist identifies God with the world: the Manichee attributes 6¢ the oid
to the world an absolute existence, independent of God. With io
the Pantheist sin ceases to have any existence: for it is only
one form of God’s working. With the Manichee sin is in-
herent in matter, which is antagonistic to God. The teaching
of the Old Testament, of which the key-note is struck in the
opening chapters of Genesis, is a refutation of both these errors.
God is distinct from the world, and He is the Creator of
the world. Evil is not inherent in God, but neither is it in-
herent in the material world. Sin is the disobedience of in-
telligent beings whom He has created, and whom He has
endowed with a free-will, which they can use or misuse.

The revelation of the New Testament is the proper com- The New
plement to the revelation of the Old. It holds this position in, rae
two main respects.

If the Old Testament sets forth the abso- peesigag ti"
lute unity of God—His distinctness from and sovereignty over
His creatures—the New Testament points out how He holds
communion with the world and with humanity, how man
becomes one with Him. And again, if the Old Testament
shows the true character of sin, the New Testament teaches
the appointed means of redemption. On the one hand the
monotheism of the Old Testament is supplemented by the
: theanthropism* of the New. Thus the theology of revelation is
Ri completed. On the other hand, the hamartiology of the Old
| ; Testament has its counterpart in the soteriology of the New.
it Thus the economy of revelation is perfected.

<=

re.

—

A

1 I am indebted for the term thean-
thropism, as describing the substance

am

In applying the terms theanthro-
pism and soteriology to the New Testa-

ear

ie.

Ss
=a

—

a
SISA ee =
LEE pee

ss
or

a
ae

of the new dispensation, to an article
by Prof. Westcott in the Contemporary
Review ty. p. 417 (December, 1867);
but it has been used independently,
though in very rare instances, by other
writers. The value of terms such as I
have employed here in fixing ideas is
enhanced by their strangeness, and will
excuse any appearance of affectation,

ment, as distinguished from the Old,
it is not meant to suggest that the
ideas involved in them were wholly
wanting in the Old, but only to indi-
cate that the conceptions, which were
inchoate and tentative and subsidiary
in the one, attain the most prominent

position and are distinctly realised in

the other.

120

2. The
ethical
error of
the here-
tics,

Their
practical
earnest-
ness,

but funda-

mental,
miscon-
ception
and con-
sequent
failure,

St Paul
substi-
tutes a
principle
for ordi-
nances.

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

2. When we turn from the theology of these Colossian
heretics to their ethical teaching, we find it characterised by
the same earnestness. Of them it might indeed be said that
they did ‘hunger and thirst after righteousness.’
impurity, immunity from evil, was a passion with them. But
it was no less true that notwithstanding all their sincerity they
‘went astray in the wilderness’; ‘hungry and thirsty, their soul
fainted within them. By their fatal transference of the abode of
sin from the human heart within to the material world without,
they had incapacitated themselves from finding the true anti-
dote. Where they placed the evil, there they necessarily sought
the remedy. Hence they attempted to fence themselves about,
and to purify their lives by a code of rigorous prohibitions.
Their energy was expended on battling with the physical con-
ditions of human life. Their whole mind was absorbed in
the struggle with imaginary forms of evil.

Escape from

Necessarily their
character was moulded by the thoughts which habitually en-
gaged them. Where the ‘elements of the world,’ the ‘things
which perish in the using’, engrossed all their attention, it
could not fail but that they should be dragged down from the
serene heights of the spiritual life into the cloudy atmosphere
which shrouds this lower earth. .

St Paul sets himself to combat this false tendency. For
negative prohibitions he substitutes a positive principle; for
special enactments, a comprehensive motive. He tells them
that all their scrupulous restrictions are vain, because they fail
to touch the springs of action. If they would overcome the
evil, they must strike at the root of the evil.
view must be entirely changed. They must transfer them-
selves into a wholly new sphere of energy. This transference
is nothing less than a migration from earth to heaven—from
the region of the external and transitory to the region of
the spiritual and eternal”, For a code of rules they must
substitute a principle of life, which is one in its essence but

Their point of

1 ii. 20, 22. 2 ili, 1 sq.

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. ‘121

the revelation of God’s holiness, of God’s righteousness, of Mg ees

God’s love, is light, is life, is heaven. With Him they have been
translated into a higher sphere, have been brought face to face
with the Eternal Presence. Let them only realise this trans-
lation. It involves new insight, new motives, new energies.
They will no more waste themselves upon vexatious special
restrictions : for they will be furnished with a higher inspiration

4 infinite in its application, which will meet every emergency,

: will control every action, will resist every form of evil.

4 This principle they have in Christ. With Him they have This prin-
‘ died to the world; with Him they have risen to God, Christ, the hoe-
t

which will cover all the minute details of action. They will
not exhaust their energies in crushing this or that rising desire,
but they will kill the whole body’ of their earthly passions
through the strong arm of this personal communion with God
in Christ. |

When we once grasp this idea, which lies at the root of St Paul’s
St Paul’s ethical teaching, the moral difficulty which is sup- . poise
posed to attach to his doctrine of faith and works has vanished. paaedl ass
It is simply an impossibility that faith should exist without in the
works. Though in form he states his doctrine as a relation of this prin:
contrast between the two, in substance it resolves itself into “P!*
a question of precedence. Faith and works are related as
principle and practice. Faith—the repose in the unseen, the
recognition of eternal principles of truth and right, the sense
of personal obligations to an Eternal Being who vindicates
these principles—must come first. Faith is not an intellectual
assent, nor a sympathetic sentiment merely. It is the absolute
surrender of self to the will of a Being who has a right to
command this surrender. It is this which places men in
personal relation to God, which (in St Paul’s language) justifies
them before God. For it touches the springs of their actions ;
it fastens not on this or that detail of conduct, but extends

1 ii, 11 év ri dwexdtoe Too chpa- vuels TA mavra, and ver. 9 dmrexdvad-
; TOS Tijs capKés, iii. 5 vexpwoare oly To EVOL TOV Tadaiov avOpwrov. See the
_ --—s pédn With ver. 8 vuvl 52 dwéGece kai notes on the several passages,

122 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

throughout the whole sphere of moral activity; and thus it
determines their character as responsible beings in the sight

of God.

The From the above account it will have appeared that the dis-
Hee ot tinctive feature of this epistle is its Christology. The doctrine
this epistle of the Person of Christ is here stated with greater precision
and fulness than in any other of St Paul’s epistles, It is
therefore pertinent to ask (even though the answer must neces-
sarily be brief) what relation this statement bears to certain
other enunciations of the same doctrine; to those for instance

eo which occur elsewhere in St Paul’s own coe to those which
in relation

to are found in other Apostolic writings, and to those which
appear in the fathers of the succeeding generations.

1. The I. The Christology of thé Colossian Epistle is in no way

eee st different from that of the Apostle’s earlier letters. It may

shee indeed be called a development of his former teaching, but only
epistles as exhibiting the doctrine in fresh relations, as drawing new
deductions from it, as defining what had hitherto been left un-
defined, not as superadding any foreign element to it. The
doctrine is practically involved in the opening and closing words
of his earliest extant epistle: ‘The Church which is in God
the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’; ‘The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ be with you’.’
of Christ, as enforced in the Colossian Epistle, alone justifies and
explains this language, which otherwise would be emptied of all
significance. And again: it had been enunciated by the Apostle
explicitly, though briefly, in the earliest directly doctrinal passage
which bears on the subject; ‘One Lord Jesus Christ, through
whom are all things and we through Him’.’ The absolute
thesame universal mediation of the Son is declared as unreservedly in

ne put this passage from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, as in any

The main conception of the Person

1 y Thess. i. 1, v. 28. even where the term itself is not

2 y Cor. viii. 6 6.’ o} Ta mdvra cat used. See the dissertation on the doc-
fyets 5” avrot. The expression 6’ of _ trine of the uses in the Apostolic
implies the conception of the Logos, writers.

= esterase

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 123

later statement of the Apostle: and, if all the doctrinal and less fully
? : NP ey Meee shy ‘ developed.

practical inferences which it implicitly involves were not

directly emphasized at this early date, it was because the cir-

cumstances did not yet require explicitness on these points.

New forms of error bring into prominence new aspects of the

truth. The heresies of Laodicea and Colossz have been inva-

luable to the later Church in this respect. The Apostle himself,

it is not too much to say, realised with ever-increasing force the

manifoldness, the adaptability, the completeness of the Christian

idea, notwithstanding its simplicity, as he opposed it to each

successive development of error. The Person of Christ proved

the complete answer to false speculations at Colosse, as it had

been found the sovereign antidote to false practices at Corinth. ©

All these unforeseen harmonies must have appeared to him, as

they will appear to us, fresh evidences of its truth.

2. And when we turn from St Paul to the other Apostolic 2. The
writings which dwell on the Person of Christ from a doctrinal lee
point of view, we find them enunciating it in language which conical
implies the same fundamental conception, though they may not writings.
always present it in exactly the same aspect. More especially
in the Epistle to the Hebrews first, and in the Gospel of St Their
John afterwards, the form of expression is identical with the pps
statement of St Paul. In both these writings the universe is tity.
said to have been created or to exist by or through Him.

This is the crucial expression, which involves in itself all
the higher conceptions of the Person of Christ’. The Epistle
to the Hebrews seems to have been written by a disciple of
St Paul immediately after the Apostle’s death, and therefore
within some five or six years from the date which has been
assigned to the Colossian letter. The Gospel of St John, if the
traditional report may be accepted, dates about a quarter of a
century later; but it is linked with our epistle by the fact that
the readers for whom it was primarily intended belonged to the
neighbouring districts of proconsular Asia. Thus it illustrates,

1 Joh, i. 3 wévra 6 avrov éyévero x.7.d., Heb. i. 2 &’ of Kal érolnoe rods
aldvas. ‘

124

Firmness
of the
apostolic
idea,

3. The
Christ-
ology of
the suc-
ceeding
ages,

Its loose-
ness of
concep-
tion.

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

and is illustrated by, the teaching of St Paul in this letter.
More especially by the emphatic use of the term Logos, which
St Paul for some reason has suppressed, it supplies the centre
round which the ideas gather, and thus gives unity and direct-
ness to the conception.

In the Christology of these Apostolic writings there is a firm-
ness and precision which leaves no doubt about the main con-
ception present to the mind of the writers. The idea of Christ
as an intermediate being, neither God nor man, is absolutely and
expressly excluded. On the one hand His humanity is distinctly
emphasized. On the other He is represented as existing from
eternity, as the perfect manifestation of the Father, as the abso-
lute mediator in the creation and government of the world.

3. But, when we turn from these Apostolic statements to
the writings of succeeding generations, we are struck with the
contrast’, A vagueness, a flaccidity, of conception betrays itself
in their language.

In the Apostolic Fathers and in the earlier Apologists we
find indeed for the most part a practical appreciation of the
Person of Christ, which leaves nothing to be desired; but as
soon as they venture upon any directly dogmatic statement, we
miss at once the firmness of grasp and clearness of conception
which mark the writings of the Apostles. If they desire to
emphasize the majesty of His Person, they not unfrequently fall
into language which savours of patripassianism*. If on the other
hand they wish to present Him in His mediatorial capacity,
they use words which seem to imply some divine being, who
is God and yet not quite God, neither Creator nor creature’.

1 The remarks on the theology of
the Apostolic Fathers, as compared
with the. Apostles, in Dorner’s Lehre
von der Person Christi 1. p. 130 8d.
seem to me perfectly just and highly
significant. See also Pressensé Trois
Premiers Siécles 11. p. 406 sq. on the
unsystematic spirit of the Apostolic
Fathers,

2 See for instance the passages

quoted in the note on Clem. Rom. 2
Ta wabnuara avTov.

3 The unguarded language of Justin
for instance illustrates the statement
in the text. On the one hand Peta-
vius, Theol. Dogm. de Trin. ii. 3. 2, dis-
tinctly accuses him of Arianism: ou
the other Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 4.1 8q.,
indignantly repudiates the charge and
claims him as strictly orthodox. Peta-

a a
a ll

a3

ee ee Cats

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 125

The Church needed a long education, before she was fitted
to be the expositor of the true Apostolic doctrine. A conflict
of more than two centuries with Gnostics, Ebionites, Sabellians,
Arians, supplied the necessary discipline. The true successors The Apo-
of the Apostles in this respect are not the fathers of the second plied ie
century, but the fathers of the third and fourth centuries. In the 1tGe AGN,
expositors of the Nicene age we find indeed technical terms
and systematic definitions, which we do not find in the Apostles
themselves; but, unless I have wholly misconceived the nature
of the heretical teaching at Colossz and the purport of St Paul’s
reply, the main idea of Christ’s Person, with which he here
confronts this Gnostic Judaism, is essentially the same as that
which the fathers of these later centuries opposed to the Sabel-
lianism and the Arianism of their own age. If I mistake not,
the more distinctly we realise the nature of the heresy, the
more evident will it become that any conception short of the
perfect deity and perfect humanity of Christ would not have
furnished a satisfactory answer; and this is the reason why
I have dwelt at such length on the character of the Colossian
false teaching, and why I venture to call especial attention to

this part of my subject.

Of the style of the letter to the Colossians I shall have occa- Style of
sion to speak hereaft hen I to di it fe,

p reafter, when I come to discuss its genuine- epistle,
ness. It is sufficient to say here, that while the hand of St Paul
is unmistakeable throughout this epistle, we miss the flow and
the versatility of the Apostle’s earlier letters.

A comparison with the Epistles to the Corinthians and to the
Philippians will show the difference. It is distinguished from Its rug-
th b . ‘ é - 1 , gedness

em by a certain ruggedness of expression, a ‘want of finish’ and com-
often bordering on obscurity. What account should be given of P80
this characteristic, it is impossible to say. The divergence of
vius indeed approaches the subject nevertheless Justin’s language is occa-
from the point of view of later Western sionally such as no Athanasian could
theology and, unable to appreciate have used. ‘The treatment of this

Justin’s doctrine of the Logos, does father by Dorner (Lehre 1. p. 414 8q.)
less than justice to this father; but is just and avoids both extremes.

126 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

style is not greater than will appear in the letters of any active-
minded man, written at different times and under different
circumstances. The epistles which I have selected for contrast
suggest that the absence of all personal connexion with the
Colossian Church will partially, if not wholly, explain the dimi-
nished fluency of this letter. At the same time no epistle of
but essen- St Paul is more vigorous in conception or more instinct with
ee meaning. It is the very compression of the thoughts which
creates the difficulty. If there is a want of fluency, there is no
want of force. Feebleness is the last charge which can be
brought against this epistle. |

Analysis. The following is an analysis of the epistle :

I. Inrropuctory (i. 1—13).
(1) i. 1, 2. Opening salutation. |
(2) i. 38. Thanksgiving for the progress of the Colossians
hitherto.
(3) 1. 9—13. Prayer for their future advance in, knowledge and
well-doing through Christ.
[This leads the Apostle to speak of Christ as the
only path of progress. |

TI. Docrrrat (i. 13—ii. 3).
The Person and Office of Christ.
(x) i. 13, 14. Through the Son we have our deliverance, our
redemption,
(2) i. 15—19. The Preeminence of the Son ;
(i) As the Head of the natural Creation, the Universe
(i. 15—17) ;
(ii) As the Head of the new moral Creation, ‘the
Church (i. 18). :
Thus He is first in all things; and this, because the pleroma
has its abode in Him (i. 19).
(3) 1. 20o—ii. 3. The Work of the Son—a work of recon-
ciliation ;
(i) Described generally (i. 20).
(ii) Applied specially to the Colossians (i. 21—23).

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. — 127

(iii) St Paul’s own part in carrying out this work. His Analysis.

sufferings and preaching. The ‘mystery’ with which
he is charged (i. 2427). |

His anxiety on behalf of all (i. 28, 29): and more
especially of the Colossian and neighbouring Churches
(ii. 1—3).

[This expression of anxiety leads him by a direct path
to the next division of the epistle. |

Jif. Poremicat (ii. 4—ili. 4).
Warning against errors.
(1) i. 4—8. The Colossians charged to abide in the truth
of the Gospel as they received it at first, and not to be
led astray by a strange philosophy which the new teachers

offer.
(2) iii 9—15. The truth stated first positively and then
negatively.

[In the passage which follows (ii. g—23) it will be ob-
served how St Paul vibrates between the theological
and practical bearings of the truth, marked a, £, re-
spectively. |

(i) Positively.

(a) The pleroma dwells wholly in Christ and is com.
municated through Him (ii. 9, 10).

(8) The true circumcision is a spiritual circumcision
(ii. 11, 12).

(ii) Negatively. Christ has
(8) annulled the law of ordinances (ii. 14) ;
(a) triumphed over all spiritual agencies, however power-
ful (ii. 15).
(3) ii. 16—iii. 4. Obligations following thereupon.
(i) Consequently the Colossians must not

(8) either submit to ritual prohibitions (ii. 16, 17),

(2) or substitute the worship of inferior beings for
allegiance to the Head (ii. 18, 19).

(ii) On the contrary this must henceforth be their
rule :

128 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

Analysis. 1. They have died with Christ; and with Him they
have died to their old life, to earthly ordinances (ii-
20—23).
2. They have risen with Christ; and with Him’ they
have risen to a new life, to heavenly principles (iil.

I—4).

TV. Horrarory (iii. 5—iv. 6).

Practical application of this death and this resurrection.

(1) iii, 5—17. Comprehensive rules.
(i) What vices are to be put off, being mortified in this
death (iii. 5—11).
(ii) What graces are to be put on, being quickened
through this resurrection (ili. 12—17).
(2) ili. r8—iv. 6. Special precepts.
(a) The obligations *
Of wives and husbands (iii. 18, 19) ;
Of children and parents (iii. 20, 21) ;
Of slaves and masters (iii. 22— iv. 1).
(5) The duty of prayer and thanksgiving ; with spevial
intercession on the Apostle’s behalf (iv. 2—4).
(c) The duty of propriety in behaviour towards the
unconverted (iv. 5, 6).

V. Prrsonat (iv. 7—18).
(1) iv. 7—g9. Explanations relating to the letter itself.
(2) iv. 1o—14. Salutations from divers persons.
(3) iv. 15—17. Salutations to divers persons. A message
relating to Laodicea.
(4) iv. 18. Farewell.

em PO,
eat. a Ag \
uy Paes

*

.

-TIPOS) KOAASSAETS.

ue .

4 TR Ripe |
3h BN HE be
‘ ‘eh

aS
rah a Ai telete
TE en Ce

WE SPEAK WISDOM AMONG THEM THAT ARE PERFECT.
YET NOT THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD.
BUT WE SPEAK THE WISDOM OF GOD IN A MYSTERY.

Iste vas electionis

Vires omnes rationis
Humane transgreditur :

Super choros angelorum

Raptus, cli secretorum
Doctrinis imbutiur.

De hoc vase tam fecundo,
Tam electo et tam mundo,
Tu nos, Christe, complue ;
Nos de luto, nos de fece,
Tua sancia purga prece,
Regno tuo statue.

TPOS KOAADDAEIS.

Bees dmdaTtoNos Xpierov Incov Oia OeAnparos
Qcod, kai Tynobeos 6 addeAdos, *Tols év Koroocats

1, 2. ‘Pav, an apostle of Christ
Jesus by no personal merit but by
God’s gracious will alone, and TimoTHy,
our brother in the faith, to the conse-
crated people of God in CoLoss#, the
brethren who are stedfast in their
allegiance and faithful in Christ. May
grace the well-spring of allmercies, and
peace the crown of all blessings, bo
bestowed upon you from God our
Father’

I. dmdcrodos] On the exceptional
omission of this title in some of St
Paul’s epistles see Phil.i.1. Though
there is no reason for supposing that
his authority was directly impugned
in the Colossian Church, yet he inter-
poses by virtue of his Apostolic com-
mission and therefore uses his autho-
ritative title. :

dia OeAjparos Geod| Asin 1 Cor.i.1,
2 Cor. i. 1, Ephes. i. 1, 2 Tim. i. 1.
These passages show that the words
cannot have a polemical bearing. If
they had been directed against those
who questioned his Apostleship, they
would probably have taken a stronger
form. The expression must therefore
be regarded as a renunciation of all
personal worth, and a declaration of
God’s unmerited grace; comp. Rom.
ix. 16 dpa ovv ov rod Gédovros ovdé
TOU TpéxXovTos GAAG Tov €Acavros Geod.
The same words 81a OeAjaros Gcod are
used in other connexions in Rom. xv.
32, 2 Cor. viii. 5, where no polemical
reference is possible.

Tiuzodeos| The name of this disciple
is attached to the Apostle’s own in

the heading of the Philippian letter,
which was probably written at an
earlier stage in his Roman captivity.
It appears also in the same connexion
in the Epistle to Philemon, but not in
the Epistle to the Ephesians, though
these two letters were .contempora-
neous with one another and with the
Colossian letter. For an explanation
of the omission, see the introduction
to that epistle.

In the Epistles to the Philippians
and to Philemon the presence of Ti-
mothy is forgotten at once (see Phil.
i, 1) In this epistle the plural is
maintained throughout the thanks-
giving (vy. 3) 45 7; 8, 9), but after-
wards dropped, when the Apostle be-
gins to speak in his own person (i. 23,
24), and so he continues to the end.
The exceptions (i. 28, iv. 3) are rather
apparent than real.

6 ddeAdos| Timothy is again desig-
nated simply ‘the brother’ in 2 Cor,
i. 1, Philem. 1, but not in Heb. xiii. 23,
where the right reading is rov ddeAgdov
npov. The same designation is used
of Quartus (Rom. xvi. 23), of Sosthenes
(1 Cor. i. 1), of Apollos (1 Cor. xvi. 12);
comp. 2 Cor. viii. 18, ix. 3, 5, xii. 18.
As some designation seemed to be
required, and as Timothy could not
be called an Apostle (see Galatians,
p. 96, note 2), this, as the simplest
title, would naturally suggest itself.

2. Kodgogoais] For the reasons
why this form is preferred here, while
Kodagoaeis is adopted in the heading
of the epistle, see above, p. 16 sq.

Q—2

132

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

ii3

dylows Kal misTois ddeApois év Xpiota@ yxapis vty

\ 3 , 5) A la) A e oa
Kal elpnvn amo Oeov matpos nuwy.
3Evyapirtouuey TH Oew [Kal] watt tov Kupiov

ayiows] ‘saints,’ i.e, the people con-

secrated to God, the Israel of the new
covenant; see the note on Phil. i. 1
This mode of address marks the later
epistles of St Paul. In his earlier
letters (1, 2 Thess., 1, 2 Cor., Gal.) he
writes 77 éxkAnoia, Tais éxkAnoias. The
change begins with the Epistle to the
Romans, and from that time forward
the Apostle always uses dyios in
various combinations in addressing
churches (Rom., Phil, Col., Ephes.).
For a similar phenomenon, serving as
a chronological mark, see the note on
4 xdpis, iv. 18. The word dyiows must

here be treated as a substantive in«

accordance with its usage in parallel
passages, and not as an adjective con-
nected with adeAdois. See the next
note.

Kat muotots adeAdois] This unusual
addition is full of meaning. Some
members of the Colossian Church were
shaken in their allegiance, even if they
had not fallen from it. The Apostle
therefore wishes it to be understood
that, when he speaks of the saints, he
means the true and stedfast members
of the brotherhood. In this way he
obliquely hints at the defection. Thus
tho words kat microis adedpois are a
supplementary explanation of rots a-
ylows. He does not directly exclude
any, but he indirectly warns all. The
epithet mords cannot mean simply
‘believing’; for then it would add no-
thing which is not already contained
in dyiows and ddeddois. Its passive
sense, ‘trustworthy, stedfast, unswery-
ing,’ must be prominent here, as in
Acts Xvi. 15 ef kexpikaté pe mori TO
Kupio etvar. See Galatians p. 155.

ev Xptor@ | Most naturally connected
with both words miorots ddedqois,
though referring chiefly to muorois ;
comp. Hphes. vi. 21 miorés Staxovos év

Kupio, I Tim. i. 2 yunol@ réxv@ ev mi-
ore. For the expression morés év
Xptore, ev Kupia, see also 1 Cor. iv. 17,
Ephes. i 1. The Apostle assumes
that the Colossian brethren are ‘ sted-
fast in Christ.’ Their state thus con-
trasts with the description of the he-
retical teacher, who (ii. 19) ov xpare?
Thy Kearny.

xapis «.7.A.| On this form of saluta-
tion see the note to 1 Thess. i. 1.

matrpos nuav| The only instance in
St Paul’s epistles, where the name of
the Father stands alone in the open-
ing benediction without the addition
of Jesus Christ. The omission was
noticed by Origen (Rom. I. § 8, Iv. p.
467), and by Chrysostom (ad loc. x1. p.
324, Hom. in 2 Cor. Xxx,x.p.651). But
transcribers naturally aimed at uni-
formity, and so in many copies we find
the addition kcal Kupiov ’Incot Xpuorod.
The only other exception to the Apo-
stle’s usual form is in 1 Thessalonians,
where the benediction is shorter still,
Xapis vuiy Kai elpnvn, and where like-
wise the copyists have supplied words
to lengthen it out in accordance with
St Paul’s common practice.

3—8. ‘We never cease to pour
forth our thanksgiving to God the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ on
your account, whensoever we pray to
Him. We are full of thankfulness
for the tidings of the faith which ye
have in Christ Jesus, and the dove which
ye show towards all the people of God,
while ye look forward to the hope
which is stored ‘up for you in heaven
as a treasure for the life to come.
This hope was communicated to you
in those earlier lessons, when the Gos-
pel was preached to you in its purity
and integrity—the one universal un-
changeable Gospel, which was made
known to you, even as it was carried

I. 4, 5]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

133

~ ~ lal 7 \ - ,
juav Incov Xpirrou TWavTOTE TEP VUwY TPOTEVYOMEVOL®
> \ e ~ ~ ~ \ A
4dKovoavTes THY TicTW UuwY ev XoioT@ Incov, Kal THY

A > / \ , A A
ayannv [ny éxeTe| els mavTas Tous aytous, Fdia THY

throughout the world, approving itself
by its fruits wheresoever it is plant-
ed. For, as elsewhere, so also in you,
these fruits were manifested from the
first day when ye received your lessons
in, and apprehended the power of, the
genuine Gospel, which is not a law of
ordinances but a dispensation of grace,
not a device of men but a truth of
God. Such was the word preached to
you by Epaphras, our beloved fellow-
servant in our Master’s household,
who in our absence and on our behalf
has ministered to you the Gospel of
Christ, and who now brings back to us
the welcome tidings of the love which
ye show in the Spirit.’

3. Evxaptorovpev] See the notes on
1 Thess. i. 2.

natpi| If the xai be omitted, as the
balance of authorities appears to sug-
gest, the form of words here is quite
exceptional. Elsewhere it runs 6 cds
kal marnp Tov Kupiov, Rom. xv.6, 2 Cor.
i, 3, xi. 31, Ephes. i. 3 (v. 1.), 1 Pet. i.
3; comp. Rev. i. 6: and in analogous
cases, such as 6 Geos kal rarnp nor,
the rule is the same. See the note on
Clem. Rom. § 7. In iii. 17 however
we have r@ Ge warpi, where the evi-
dence is more decisive and the ex-
pression quite as unusual, On the
authorities for the various readings
here see the detached note.

mayvrote x.t.A.| We here meet the
same difliculty about the connexion of
the clauses, which confronts us in
several of St Paul’s opening thanks-
givings. The words mdvrore and wept
vpov must clearly be taken together,
because the emphasis of epi vpudv
would be inexplicable, if it stood at
the beginning of a clause. But are
they to be attached to the preceding or
to the following sentence? The con-
nexion with the previous words is fa-

voured by St Paul’s usual conjunction
of evxapioreiy mavrore (see the note on
Phil. i. 3), and by the parallel passage
ov Tavopat evxaptoray vmép duay in
Ephes. i. 16. Thus the words will
mean ‘ We give thanks for you always
in our prayers.” For this absolute
use of mpocevyopevor see Matt. vi. 7,
Acts xvi. 25.

4. dxovoavtes| ‘having heard’ from
Epaphras (ver. 8); for the Apostle had
no direct personal knowledge of the
Colossian Church: see the introduc-
tion, p. 27 8q.

€v Xpiot@ “Inoov| To be connected
with ryyv riot vpov. The strict clas-
sical language would require riv év
X. ’I., but the omission of the article is
common in the New Testament (e. g.
ver, 8); see the note on 1 Thess. i. 1,
and Winer § xx. p. 169 (ed. Moulton).
The preposition éy here and in the pa-
rallel passage, Ephes. i. 15, denotes the
sphere in which their faith moves,
rather than the object to which it is
directed (comp. 3 Cor. iii. 5); for, if
the object had been meant, the na-
tural preposition would have been émi
or eis (e.g. ii. 5). This is probably the
case also in the passages where at
first sight it might seem otherwise,
e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 15; for
compare 2 Tim. i. 13 é€v qwiores xat
dydarn TH ev Xpiotd "Inocod, where the
meaning is unambiguous. There is
however authority in the Lxx for the
use of €v with wioris, murrevewv, to de-
note the object, in Jer. xii. 6, Ps.
lxxviii. 22, and perhaps in Mark i. 15,
Rom. iii. 25, and (more doubtfully still)
in Joh. iii. 15.

nv €xere| See the detached note on
the various readings.

5. Ova thy edridal ‘for the hope,’ i.e.
looking to the hope. The following
reasons seem decisive in favour of con-

134 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. [I. 6

A / ~ ~ ~ ee
eAmioa THY aTroKEEevnY Upiv ev TOis OvVpavois, HY mpon-
y - 4 “ > , ~ > / lod
KOUGATE €V TW oy THs aAnOelas Tov evayyedAtou, ° rou
, e - \ \ \ ~ ld
TapovTos Eis Yuas, Kalws Kal Ev TaYTL TH KOTMw éEoTIV

necting dia ryv é€Amida, not with evdya-
ptorovpev, but with thy miotw Kt.A,,
whether jy éyere be retained or not.
(1) The great distance of edxapicrov-
pev is against the former connexion;
(2) The following clause, 7» mponkov-
gate «7.A., suggests that the words
dua THY edmida describe the motives of
the Colossians for well-doing, rather
than the reasons of the Apostle for
thanksgiving: (3) The triad of Chris-
tian graces, which St Paul delights to
associate together, would otherwise be
broken up. This last argument seems

conclusive; see especially the corre-

sponding thanksgiving in 1 Thess. i. 3,
PYNpovevovtes UuaY TOU Epyou THs Ti-
OTEWS Kal TOV KOTOU THs ayamns kal
Tis Uropovns THs é€Amidos Kr.A., With
the note there. The order is the same
here, as there; and it is the natural
sequence. Faith rests on the past;
love works in the present; hope looks
to the future. They may be regard-
ed as the efficient, material, and
final causes respectively of the spiri-
tual life. Compare Polycarp Phil. 3
mioTw Ts €oTl pnTNp TarT@V TUO?,
€mrakoAovbovons Tis EAmiOos, mpoayovans
THs ayarns.

The hope here is identifed with the
object of the hope: see the passages
quoted on Gal. v. 5. The sense of
€A\mis, as of the corresponding words
in any language, oscillates between the
subjective feeling and the objective
realisation ; comp. Rom. viii. 24 77
yap edrids €owOnpev* éedmris 5é Brerro-
pevn ovK eat €Amis* O yap Bréret Tis
k.7.A., Where it passes abruptly from
the one to the other.

THY aoketperny| ‘which is stored
up. Itis the 6ncavpds év ovpava of
the Gospels (Matt. vi. 20, 21, Luke xii.
34, xviii. 22).

mponkovoare] ‘of which ye were

told in time past. The preposition
seems intended to contrast their
earlier with their later lessons—the
true Gospel of Epaphras with the false
gospel of their recent teachers (see
the next note). The expression would
gain force, if we might suppose that
the heretical teachers obscured or
perverted the doctrine of the resur-
rection (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 18); and their

speculative tenets were not unlikely

to lead to such a result. But this is
not necessary; for under any circum-
stances the false doctrine, as leading
them astray, tended to cheat them of
their hope; see ver.23. The common
interpretations, which explain mpo- as
meaning either ‘before its fulfilment’
or ‘before my writing to you, seem
neither so natural in themselves nor
80 appropriate to the context.

Tis adnOcias rod evayyeAlov] ‘ the
truth of the Gospel, i.e. the true and
genuine Gospel as taught by Epaphras,
and not the spurious substitute of
these later pretenders: comp. ver. 6
ev adncia. See also Gal. ii. 5, 14,
where a similar contrast is implied in
the use of 7 ddnOela rod evayyediov.

6. tod mapovros eis vas] ‘which
reached you. The expression zapei-
vat eis 18 not uncommon in classical
writers ; comp. mapeiva: mpos in Acts
xii. 20, Gal. iv. 18, 20. So also evpe-
Onvat eis (Acts vill. 40), yevéoOat eis
(eg. Acts xxv. 15); and even etva
eis (Luke xi. 7). See Winer § 1. p.
516 sq.

év mavtt TS Koopm] For a similar
hyperbole see Rom. i. 8 €v dA@ ra
Koope ; comp. I Thess. i. 8, 2 Cor. ii. 14,
év mavtt roTm. More lurks under these
words than appears on the surface. The
true Gospel, the Apostle seems to say,
proclaims its truth by its universality.
The false gospels are the outgrowths

bearing fruit,

I. 6]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

135

: / ‘ ? 4 \ Ni tk en
KapTopopoumevoy Kat av€avomevov, Kabws Kal év vuiv,

<$ / \ / \ / ~
ap ns imépas jKoveaTe Kal émeyvwTEe THY YapwW TOU

of local circumstances, of special idio-
syncrasies; the true Gospel is the
same everywhere. The false gospels
address themselves to limited circles ;
the true Gospel proclaims itself boldly
throughout the world. Heresies are
at best ethnic: truth is essentially
catholic. See ver. 23 ux) peraxuvovpevor
amo tis éAmidos Tov evayyediov ov
neovoaTe, TOU KnpvxOévros ev Taoy
KTLOEL TH VITO TOY Ovpavoy.

éotiv kaproopovpevor | ‘isconstantly
The fruit, which the
Gospel bears without fail in all soils
and under every climate, is its cre-
dential, its verification, as against the
pretensions of spurious counterfeits.
The substantive verb should here be
taken with the participle, so as to
express continuity of present action ;
as in 2 Cor. ix. 12 ot povoy éotly mpoca-
vamAnpovoa k.T.A., Phil. ii. 26 éemurodav
nv. It is less common in St Paul
than in some of the Canonical writers,
e.g. St Mark and St Luke; but pro-
bably only because he deals less in
narrative.

Of the middle xaprodopeicbar no
other instance has been found. The
voice is partially illustrated by codo-
vopopeiabar, aidnpodopeic bat, rupma-
vopopeioGa, though, as involving a
different sense of -popeto da: ‘to wear,’
these words are not exact parallels.
Here the use of the middle is the
more marked, inasmuch as the active
occurs just below (ver. 10) in the
same connexion, xaprodopovrres xa
avgavopevot. This fact however points
to the force of the word here. The
middle is intensive, the active exten-
sive. The middle denotes the inherent
energy, the active the external diffu-
sion. The Gospel is essentially a re-
productive organism, a plant whose
‘seed is in itself’? For this ‘dynamic’
middle see Moulton’s note on Winer
§ xxxviii. p. 319.

kat avfavouevov] The Gospel is not
like those plants which exhaust them-
selves in bearing fruit and wither
away. The external growth keeps
pace with the reproductive energy.
While xaprodopovpevoy describes the
inner working, avéavopuevoy gives the
outward extension of the Gospel. The
words kal avéavouevoy are not found
in the received text, but the autho-
rity in their favour is overwhelming.

ka0eds kat év vuiv] The comparison
is thus doubled back, as it were, on
itself. ‘This irregularity disappears in
the received text, cai éoriv xaprodo-
povpevov Kabads kal év viv, where the
insertion of xat before xapmrodopovpe-
voy straightens the construction. For
a similar irregularity see 1 Thess. iv.
I mapakadovpev év Kupioa “Incov iva,
Kaas trapeAaBere trap’ Huav TO Tas Set
Upas wepiraretv Kal dpéoxey Oe@, kabas
kal mepurareire, iva meptoaevnre paddor,
where again the received text simpli-
fies the construction, though in a dif-
ferent way, by omitting the first iva
and the words xaos kai mepurareire.
In both cases the explanation of the
irregularity is much the same; the
clause reciprocating the comparison
(here xa@ds xai év vpiv, there xabds
kat qmepurareire) is an afterthought
springing out of the Apostle’s anxiety
not to withhold praise where praise
can be given.

For the appearance of xai in both
members of the comparison, kat év
mavtt TO KOou®...Kabas Kai, comp.
Rom. i. 13 kat €v viv Kadds kal év rois
Aourots €Oveow; and in the reversed
order below, iii. 13 KaOas Kai 6 Kipuos
éxapicaro vpiv, odtas Kal vyueis (with
the note): see also Winer liii. p. 549
(ed. Moulton). The correlation of the
clauses is thus rendered closer, and
the comparison emphasized.

nkovoate kal éréyvwre| The accusa-
tive is governed by both verbs equally,

136 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[I. 7, 8

~ , A ‘a A o~ ~~
Geot év adnOeia, 7Tkabws éuabere amo "Eragppa tov
> ~ 7 “~ e/ > \ A a“
ayanntTov cuvdovAou Mov, Os EXT TLETOS UTED Nw
tf ~ lad / ~ A
duakovos ToU Xpiotov, *o Kal SnrXwoas july THY Vuor

UA ,
ayarny €v mvevpate.

‘Ye were instructed in and fully ap-
prehended the grace of God. For
this sense of dkoveww see below, ver.
23. For émvyiwdcke as denoting ‘ad-
vanced knowledge, thorough apprecia-
tion,’ see the note on émiyveors, ver. 9.

THY xapy Tov Geov| St Paul’s syno-
nyme for the Gospel. In Acts xx. 24
he describes it as his mission to preach
TO evayyedioy THS XapLToOs Tov Ocov.
The true Gospel as taught by Epa-
phras was an offer of free grace, a
message from God; the false gospel,
as superposed by the heretical teach-
ers, was a code of rigorous prohibitions,
a system of human devising. It was
not yapis but doypara (il. 14); not rod
Gcov but Tod Kocpov, Trav avOperey (ii.
8, 20,22). For God’s power and good-
ness it substituted self-mortification
and self-exaltation. The Gospel is
called 7 ydpis rov Geod again in 2 Cor.
Vi. I, viil. 9, with reference to the same
leading characteristic which the Apo-
stle delights to dwell upon (e.g. Rom.
jii, 24, v. 15, Eph. ii. 5, 8), and which
he here tacitly contrasts with the doc-
trine of the later intruders. The false
teachers of Colossee, like those of Ga-
latia, would lead their hearers adereiv
THY Xaptyv Tov Geov (Gal. ii. 21) ; to ac-
cept their doctrine was éxminrew rips
xaptitos (Gal. v. 4).

év dAnOeia] i.e. ‘in its genuine sim-
plicity, without adulteration’: see the
note On tits ddnOeias rod evayyeXiov,
ver. 5.
7. Kabas éuabere| ‘Seven as ye were
instructed in it, the clause being an
explanation of the preceding év dAn-
Gcia. 3 comp. ii. 7 Kabads edidayOnre.
On the insertion of xai before éua-
Gere in the received text, and the con-
sequent obscuration of the sense, see
above, p. 29 sq. The insertion how-

ever was very natural, inasmuch as
kaOos xat is an ordinary collocation
of particles and has occurred twice in
the preceding verse.

’"Eradpa| On thenoticesof Epaphras,
and on his work as the evangelist
of the Colossians see above, p. 29 8q.,
Pp. 34 8q., and the note on iv. 12.

cvvdovrov] Seeiv. 7, The word does
not occur elsewhere in St Paul.

vmep jpov| As the evangelist of

~ Colossee, Epaphras had represented

St Paul there and preached in his
stead ; see above, p. 30. The other
reading vmrép vudv might be interpret-
ed in two ways: either (1) It might
describe the personal ministrations of
Epaphras to St Paul as the represen-
tative of the Colossians (see a similar
case in Phil. ii. 25, iv. 18), and so it
might be compared with Philem. 13
iva vrép cov pot Scaxovp; but this in-
terpretation is hardly consistent with
Tov Xprorov. Or (2) It might refer to
the preaching of Epaphras for the
good of the Colossians ; but the na-
tural construction in this case would
hardly be vieép duay (of which there is
no direct example), but either vuav
(Rom. xv. 8) or dpiv (1 Pet. i. 12).
The balance of external authority
however is against it. Partly by
the accidental interchange of similar
sounds, partly by the recurrence of
vméep vpov in the context (vv. 3, 9), and
partly also from ignorance of the his-
torical circumstances, juey would read-
ily be substituted for yer. See the
detached note on various readings.

8. 6 xal dnAdaas| ‘As he preached
to you from us, so also he brought
back to us from you the tidings, etc.

év wvevpatrct] To be connected with
Thy vpov ayanny. ‘The fruit of the
Spirit is love,” Gal. v. 22. For the

I..9]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

137

9Ala TOUTO Kal Hels, ap as rimepas TiKOUT EE, ou
mavopueba vmep Ue TporevxoMevor Kal air oupevor iva
mAnpwOnte Thy Eériyvwow TOU GeAnpatros avTou év

omission of the article, rv ev rvevpartt,
see the note on ver. 4.

9—14. ‘ Hearing then that ye thus
abound in works of faith and love,
we on our part have not ceased, from
the day when we received the happy
tidings, to pray on your behalf. And
this is the purport of our petitions ;
that ye may grow more and more in
knowledge, till ye attain to the perfect
understanding of God’s will, being en-
dowed with all wisdom to apprehend
His verities and all intelligence to
follow His processes, living in the
mind of the Spirit—to the end that
knowledge may manifest itself in
practice, that your conduct in life may
be worthy of your profession in the
Lord, so as in all ways to win for you
the gracious favour of God your King.
Thus, while ye bear fruit in every
good work, ye will also grow as the
tree grows, being watered and re-
freshed by this knowledge, as by the
dew of heaven: thus ye will be
strengthened in all strength, according
to that power which centres in and
spreads from His glorious manifesta-
tion of Himself, and nerved to ail
endurance under affliction and all
long-suffering under provocation, not
only without complaining, but even
with joy: thus finally ‘(for this is the
crown of dll), so rejoicing ye will pour
forth your thanksgiving to the Uni-
versal Father, who prepared. and fitted
us all—you and us alike—to take pos-
session of the portion which His good-
ness has allotted to us among the
saints in the kingdom of light. Yea,
by a strong arm He rescued us from
the lawless tyranny of Darkness, re-
moved us from the land of our bond-
age, and settled us as free citizens in
our new and glorious home, where His
Son, the offspring and the representa-

tive of His love, is King; even the
same, who paid our ransom and thus
procured our redemption from cap-
tivity—our redemption, which (be
assured) is nothing else than the re-
mission of our sins.’

9g. Awa todvro] ‘for this cause,’ i.e.
‘by reason of your progressive faith
and love,’ referring not solely to 6 kat
dnieoas x.t-A. but to the whole of
the preceding description. For dia
Touro kal jueis in an exactly similar
connexion, see 1 Thess. ii. 13; comp.
Hphes. i. 15 Ova rodro kayo x.r.A. In
all these cases the xai denotes the
response of the Apostle’s personal
feeling to the favourable character
of the news; ‘we on our part.’ This
idea of correspondence is still further
emphasized by the repetition of the
same words: kal év dpiv ad’ Hs ju<pas
yxovoate (ver. 6), kal nets ad’ Hs jpye-
pas nkovcapey (ver. 9).

kai airovpevot] The words have an
exact parallel in Mark xi. 24 (as cor-
rectly read) mavra dca mpocevyecbe
kal aireio Ge.

iva] With words like mpocevyecOa,
aireio@a, etc., the earlier and stronger
force of iva, implying design, glides
imperceptibly into its later and weaker
use, signifying merely purport or re-
sult, so that the two are hardly sepa-
rable, unless one or other is directly
indicated by something in the con-
text. See the notes on Phil.i. 9, and
comp. Winer § xliv. p. 420 sq.

riv exiyvwoww| A favourite wordin the
later epistles of St Paul; see the note
on Phil.i.9. In all the four epistles
of the first Roman captivity it is an
elementin the A postle’s opening prayer
forhiscorrespondents’ well-being (Phil.
i. 9, Ephes. i. 17, Philem. 6, and here).
The greater stress whichis thus laid on
the contemplative aspects of the Gospel

138

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[I. 10

7 , , lo n
waon copia Kal cuveret mvevmaTiKn, “repiTaTHGaL
~ , >’ a ls 5 sf
d£iws Tov Kuptov ets wacay dpéoKkeay: évy TayTt Epyw

may be explained partly by St Paul’s
personal circumstances, partly by the
requirements of the Church. His en-
forced retirement and comparative
leisure would lead his own thoughts
in this direction, while at the same
time the fresh dangers threatening the
truth from the side of mystic specu-
lation required to be confronted by
an exposition of the Gospel from a
corresponding point of view.

The compound éziyveors is an ad-
vance upon yvdous, denoting a larger
and more thorough knowledge. So
Chrysostom here, ¢yywre, ddda Sei re
kal emvyvavae Comp. Justin Mart.
Dial. 3, p. 221 A, 4 wapéxovoa avray,
Tov avOperivav kal Tav Ociwv yydorr,
érevra Tis ToUT@Y Gevornros Kat Sixato-
avvns emiyvaotv. So too St Paul
himself contrasts ywockew,yvdors,with
envywockev, exlyywots, as the par-
tial with the complete, in two pas-
sages, Rom. i. 21, 28, 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
With this last passage (apre ywooko
€k pépous, ToTe O€ emtyvdcopuar) com-
pare Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 17, p. 369,
mapa tov ‘“ESpaikay mpodytav pépyn
ris dAnOelas ov Kar émiyvec.v da-
Bovres, Where kar’ émiyvwow is com-
monly but wrongly translated ‘without
proper recognition’ (comp. Tatian ad
Grec. 40). Hence also ériyvwois is
used especially of the knowledge of
God and of Christ, as being the per-
fection of knowledge : e.g. Prov. ii. 5,
Hos. iv. 1, vi. 6, Ephes, i. 17, iv. 13,
2 Pet. i. 2, 8, ii. 20, Clem. Alex. Ped.
1s, 25 pit 7 3.

copia kat cuvecer] ‘wisdom and in-
telligence. The two words are fre-
quently found together: e.g. Hxod.
xxxi. 3, Deut. iv. 6, 1 Chron. xxii. 12,
2 Chron. 1.10 60. 1a: xk. 2,-2x1%. 14,
Dan. ii. 20, Baruch iii. 23, 1 Cor. i. 19,
Clem. Rom. 32. So too cool kai
cuveroi, Prov. xvi. 21, Matt. xi. 25,
and elsewhere. In the parallel pas-

sage, Eph. i. 8, the words are év rdoy
copia kal dpovncet, and the substitu-
tion of dpovnais for cdveots there is
instructive. The three words are
mentioned together, Arist. Eth. Nic.
i. 13, a8 constituting the intellectual
(Stavontixai) virtues. odia is mental
excellence in its highest and fullest
sense; Arist. Hih. Nic. vi. 7 4 axpt-
Beotarn téy émiotnpay...domep Kepa-
Any €xovea emioTipn TOY TipwraTov
(see Waitz on Arist. Organ. II. p. 295
sq.), Cicero de Off. i. 43 ‘ princeps om-
nium virtutum,’ Clem. Alex. Pad. ii. 2,
p. 181, redela...€umepikaBovoa ta dAa.
The Stoic definition of copia, as ém-
oTnpn Ociwv kai dvOpemivev kal tav
Tourwv aitiav, is repeated by various
writers: e.g. Cic. de Off. ii. 5, Philo
Congr. erud. grat. 14, p. 530, [ Joseph. |
Mace. 2, Clem. Alex. Ped. ii. 2, p. 181,
Strom. i. 5, p. 333, Orig. c. Cels. iii. 72,
Aristob. in Hus. Prep. Ev. xiii. 12,
p. 667. And the glorification of copia
by heathen writers was even sur-
passed by its apotheosis in the Pro-
verbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon.
While co¢dia ‘wisdom’ is thus primary
and absolute (Zth. Nic. vi. 7 pi povoy
Ta €K TOY apxay eidévat GAXA Kal Trept
Tas apxas adAnGevewv), both auvects ‘in-
telligence’ and gdpovnos ‘prudence’
are derivative and special (Zth. Nic
Vi. 12 rdv €oyarwv Kal Tov Kad’ ExacTov).
They are both applications of codia
to details, but they work on different
lines; for, while ovveous is critical,
pornos is practical; while cuiveois
apprehends the bearings of things,
pornos suggests lines of action : see
Arist. Zih. Nic. vi. 11 7 pev yap ppo-
vnows emitaxtiky é€oTiv...4 Sé avve-
ois kpitrixyn. For cuvecits see 2 Tim.
li. 7 vdee 0 Aéya, Sdoet yap wot 6 Ku-
pios atveowy ev waow. ‘This relation
of codia to civecis explains why in
almost every case codia (coos) pre-
cedes avveois (ovverds), where they

I. 11]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS,

139

oa “ 4 , Cl ,
adyale KkaptodopovvTes Kat av€avouevor TH ériyvwrer
_ 5 ; / / / $ A \
Tov Geov' “év waon duvvaper dvvamovpevot KaTa TO

are found together, and also why in
Baruch iii. 23 of éx(yrntal tis ovve-
cews, 6d0v Sé codias ovK éyvecay, We
find ctveors implying a tentative, par-
tial, approach to godia. The relation
of codia to ppdrvners will be considered
more at length in the note on the
parallel passage, Ephes. i. 8.

mvevparixky| The word is emphatic
from its position. The false teachers
also offered a codia, but it had only
a show of wisdom (ii. 23); it was an
empty counterfeit calling itself philo-
sophy (ii. 8); it was the offspring of
vanity nurtured by the mind of the jlesh
(ii. 18). See 2 Cor. i. 12 ovx ev copia
gapxixy, where a similar contrast is
implied, and 1 Cor. i. 20, ii. 5, 6, 13,
iii. 19, where it is directly expressed
by codia rod Kocpov, codia avOparar,
copia rod aidvos rovTov, dvOpwmrivn co-
dia, ete.

10, mepurarnoa déios «t.r.] Sor
Thess. ii. 12, Ephes. iv. 1; comp. Phil.
i. 27. The infinitive here denotes the
consequence (not necessarily the pur-
pose) of the spiritual enlightenment
described in fva mAnpabijre x.r.A.; See
Winer § xliv. p. 399 sq. With the
received text mepirarjoa tpas dkios
«7A, the connexion might be doubtful;
but this reading is condemned by ex-
ternal evidence. The emphasis of the
sentence would be marred by the inser-
tion of duds. The end ofall knowledge,
the Apostle would say, is conduct.

Tov Kupiov] i.e. ‘of Christ.’ In 1
Thess. ii. 12 indeed we have zepiza-
reiv d&iws Tod Gcod; but St Paul’s com-
mon, and apparently universal, usage
requires us to understand 6 Kupuos of
Christ.

dpéoxetav] i.e. ‘to please God in all
ways’; comp. I Thess. iv. I més dei
tpas mepurareiy Kal dpéoxery Oecd. AS
this word was commonly used to de-
scribe the proper attitude of men to-
wards God, the addition of rod Gcod

would not be necessary: Philo Quis
rer. div. her. 24 (I. p. 490) as dzrode-
Xopuévou (Tov Geod) tas spuyfs Exovoiov
dpeokeias, de Abrah. 25 (I. p. 20)
Tas mpos dpéokevay opuas, de Vict. OF.
8 (IL p. 257) dud wacdy tévar ray eis
dpéoxevay oddv, with other passages
quoted by Loesner. Otherwise it is
used especially of ingratiating oneself
with a sovereign or potentate, e.g.
Polyb. vi. 2. 12; and perhaps in the
higher connexion, in which it occurs
in the text, the idea of a king is still
prominent, as e.g. Philo de Mund.
Op. 50 (I. p. 34) wavra kat éyew kat
mparrew éomovdatev eis apéoKetav Tod
marpos kal Bacitéws. Towards men
this complaisance is always dangerous
and most commonly vicious; hence
dpéoxera is a bad quality in Aristotle
[?] (Ath. Bud. ii. 3 ro Aiav pds jdovqv)
as also in Theophrastus (Char. 5 ovx
ext t@ Bedticra ndovis mapacKevacri-
xy), but towards the King of kings no
obsequiousness can be excessive. The
dpéoxeca of Aristotle and Theophrastus
presents the same moral contrast to
the dpécxerca here, as dvOpamois dpé-
oxew tO Ged dpéoxew in such passages
as I Thess. ii. 4, Gal. i. 10. Opposed
to the dpéoxera commended here is dv-
Opwmrapécxeca condemned below, iii. 22.

év wart «.T.A.] i.e. ‘not only showing
the fruits of your faith before men
(Matt. vii. 16), but yourselves growing
meanwhilein moral stature (Hph.iv.13).’

Th envyvooce| ‘by the knowledge,’
The other readings, €v 17 émyvdce,
eis Thy ériyywow, are unsuccessful
attempts to define the construction.
The simple instrumental dative re-
presents the knowledge of God as the
dew or the rain which nurtures the
growth of the plant; Deut. xxxii. 2,
Hos. xiv. 5.

11, Ovvapodpevor] A word found
more than once in the Greek versions
of the Old Testament, Ps. xvii (Ixviii).

140

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS,

(ink

, rs , ~ ~ A
Kpatos Tis Oo€ns avTOU Els TaTAY VTOMOYnY Kal baKpo-
, \ - ~ lanl ~~ ®
Oupiav wera xapas’ “evyapioToUVTEs TH TATPL TH ika-

12. TQ lkavdoavre buds.

29 (Lxx), Eccles. x. 10 (Lxx), Dan. ix.
27 (Theod.), Ps. Ixiv (Ixv). 4 (Aq.), Job
xxxvi. 9 (Aq.), but not occurring else-
where in the New Testament, except
in Heb, xi. 34 and as a various read-
ing in Ephes. vi. 10. The compound
evSuvvazoov however appears several
times in St Paul and elsewhere.

kara TO kparos| The power commu-
nicated to the faithful corresponds to,
and is a function of, the Divine might
whence it comes. Unlike dvvayis or
icxvs, the word xparos in the New
Testament is applied solely to God.

tis Oo€ns avrov| The ‘glory’ here,
as frequently, stands for the majesty
or the power or the goodness of God,
as manifested to men; e.g. Eph. i. 6,
12, 17, iii. 16; comp. ver. 27, below.
The dd€a, the bright light over the
mercy-seat (Rom. ix. 4), was a symbol
of such manifestations. God’s revela-
tion of Himself to us, however this
revelation may be made, is the one
source of all our highest strength
(kara TO Kparos k.T.A.).

VTopovny kal paxpoOupiav | ‘endurance
and long-suffering. The two words
occur in the same context in 2 Cor. vi.
4, 6, 2 Tim. iii. 10, James v. 10,11, Clem.
Rom. 58 (64), Ign. Lphes. 3. They
are distinguished in Trench Synon.
§ lili. p. 184 sq. The difference of
meaning is best seen in their opposites.
While vmopovn is the temper which
does not easily succumb under suffer-
ing, paxpoOupia is the self-restraint
which does not hastily retaliate a
wrong. The one is opposed to cow-
ardice or despondency, the other to
wrath or revenge (Prov. xv. 18, Xvi. 32;
see also the note on iii, 12). While
vmopovn is closely allied to hope (1
Thess. i. 3), paxpoOvuia is commonly
connected with mercy (e.g. Exod. xxxiv.
6). This distinction however, though
it applies generally, is not true with-

out exception. Thus in Is. lvii. 15
paxpoOupia is opposed to dAryouyia,
where we should rather have expected
vrouovy ; and paxpobvpeiv is used simi-
larly in James v. 7.

pera xapas| So James i. 2, 3, wacav
Xapay jynoacbe...drav meipacpots me-
piméonre motkidols, yiweoKovtes OTL TO
Ookiusov Yuay Ths TicTews KaTEpyaceTut
Umoporny K.T.A.: comp. I Pet. iv. 13,
and see below i. 24. This parallel
points to the proper connexion of
feta xapas, which should be attached
to the preceding words. On the other
hand some would connect it with ed-
xXaptotovrres for the sake of preserving
the balance of the three clauses, év
mavtit €py@ dyabd Kkaprodopodrres, ev
macy Ovvayer Suvapovpevor, peta xapas
evxap.oTovvres; and this seems to be
favoured by Phil. i. 4 wera yapas thy
denow movovpevos: but when it is so
connected, the emphatic position of
pera xapas cannot be explained; nor
indeed would these words be needed
at all, for evyapioria is in itself an act
of rejoicing.

12. evxaptorovvres] Most naturally
coordinated with the preceding parti-
ciples and referred to the Colossians.
The duty of thanksgiving is more than
once enforced upon them below, ii. 7,
iii. 17, iv. 2; comp. 1 Thess. v.18. On
the other hand the first person jpas,
which follows, has led others to con-
nect evxapiorovvres with the primary
verb of the sentence, ov mavopeda ver.
9. But, even if the reading jyas be
preferred to vas (which is perhaps
doubtful), the sudden transition from
the second to the first person is quite
after St Paul’s manner (see the note
on il. 13, 14, cuvefworoinoey vas...
xapirapevos nuiv), and cannot create
any difficulty.

T@ ikavocavtt| ‘who made us com-
petent’; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 6. On the

I. 13]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

I4I

Nie rad \ , a , a ,

VWOAVTL nuas Els THY pEepida TOU KANpoV TaV ayiwv év
- , a 7 ~~ Pand a)

Tw dwt’ “30s é€pvoaTo nuas €K THS é£ovclas TOU

various readings see the detached
note. -

THv pepioa Tov KAnpov] ‘the parcel
of the lot, ‘the portion which consists
in the lot, rod xAjpov being the
genitive of apposition: see Winer § lix.
p. 666sq., and comp. Ps. xv (xvi). 5
Kuptos pepis tis KAnpovopias pov. In
Acts viii. 21 pepis and kAjpos are Co-
ordinated; in Gen. xxxi. 14, Num.
XViii. 20, Is. lvii. 6, pepis and KAnpo-
vopia. The inheritance of Canaan, the
allotment of the promised land, here
presents an analogy to, and supplies
a metaphor for, the higher hopes of
the new dispensation, as in Heb. iii.
7—iy. 11. See also below, iii. 24 ryv
dyrarddocw Tis kAnpovopias, and Ephes.
i. 18. St Chrysostom writes, da ri
KAApov Karei; Secxvds dre ovdels amd
xaropbwpdrey oikeiwy Bacidelas TUyX4a-
vet, referring to Luke xvii. 10, It is
not won by us, but allotted to us.

évt@ dori] Best taken with the
expression tiv pepida xr.A. For the
omission of the definite article, [rv]
év TG hari, see above, vy. 2, 4,8. The
portion of the saints is situated in the
kingdom of light. For the whole con-
text compare St Paul’s narrative in
Acts xxvi. 18 rod émiotpéa amo
aKxorovs eis has kal ths éEovaias
Tov Sarava emi tov Oeov, Tov AaPeiv
avrovs dbeoiy duapriay Kal KAj pov
€v tots nytagpeévors, Where all the
ideas and many of the expressions
recur. See also Acts xx. 32, inanother
of St Paul’slater speeches. As a clas-
sical parallel, Plato Resp, vii. p. 518 A,
ék te deros eis oKotos peSiorapevov
kat €x oxorovus eis Pas, is quoted.

13. ‘We were slaves in the land of
darkness. God rescued us from this
thraldom. He transplanted us thence,
and settled us as free colonists and
citizens in the kingdom of His Son, in
the realms of light.’

épvaato| ‘rescued, delivered us’ by
His strong arm, as a mighty conquer-
or: comp. ii. 15 O@ptapBevoas. On the
form épvcaro see A. Buttmann, p. 29:
comp. Clem. Rom. 55, and see the
note on é£epifaaer, 7b. 6,

efovoias| Here ‘arbitrary power, ty-
ranny.’ The word éfovaia properly sig-
nifies ‘liberty of action’ (€or), and
thence, like the corresponding Eng-
lish word ‘license,’ involves two second-
ary ideas, of which either may be so
prominent as to eclipse the other;
(1) ‘authority,’ ‘delegated power’ (e.g.
Luke xx. 2); or (2) ‘tyranny, ‘law-
lessness, ‘unrestrained or arbitrary
power.’ For this second sense comp.
e.g. Demosth. F. LZ. p. 428 riv dyav
tavtTnv efovoiav, Xenoph. Hiero 5
Tis eis TO Tapov eoucias Evexa (speak-
ing of tyrants), Plut. Vit. Hum. 13 ava-
yoyo tais e£ovaias Kal padakol rais
duairas, Vit. Alex. 33 rhv é€ovciav
kal Tov Oykoy Tijs’AdeEavdpov Suvdpeas,
Herodian ii. 4 xaOaipeow ths dvérov
efovcias. This latter idea of a capri-
cious unruly rule is prominent here.
The expression 7 é¢fo0vcia tod oxérovs
occurs also in Luke xxii, 53, where
again the idea of disorder is involved.
The transference from darkness to
light is here represented as a trans-
ference from an arbitrary tyranny, an
e£ovaia, to a well-ordered sovereignty,
a Bacircia. This seems also to be
St Chrysostom’s idea; for he explains
ths e€ovaias by tis rupavvidos, adding
XaAeTOv kat TO adds eivat id TO Sia-
Boro ro dé kal per e£ovaias, todro
xaderrorepor.

petéotnoev| ‘removed, when they
were baptized, when they accepted
Christ. The image of peréorncey is
supplied by the wholesale transporta-
tion of peoples (dvacrdrovs or dya-
omaorous movety), Of which the history
of oriental monarchies supplied so

142

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(ior

Z , > \ V4 ~ eon ~
OKOTOUS, Kal MEeTEaTHOEY Els THY BaoiAElayv TOU Viov THs

many examples. See Joseph. Anz. ix.
II. I rovs olxntropas aiypadoricas
peteatnoey eis THY aitov Bactdeiar,
speaking of Tiglath-Pileser and the
Transjordanic tribes.

tov viov| Not of inferior angels, as
the false teachers would have it (ii. 18),
but of His own Son. The same con-
trast between a dispensation of angels
and a dispensation of the Son un-
derlies the words here, which is ex-
plicitly brought out in Heb. i. 1—ii. 8;
see especially i. 2 €Aadnoev nyiv ev vid,
compared with ii, 5 ov yap ayyéAous
umerakeyv THY oikouperny THY weAXOVCAY,
Severianus has rightly caught the idea
underlying rod viov here; imd roy
kAnpovopov oper, OX Ud TOvs OiKéras.

THs ayanns avtod] ‘of His love” As
love is the essence of the Father(1 Joh.
iv. 8, 16), so is it also of the Son. The
mission of the Son is the revelation of
the Father’s love; for as He is the
povoyerys, the Father’s love is per-
fectly represented in Him (see 1 Joh.
iv. 9). St Augustine has rightly in-
terpreted St Paul’s words here, de
Trin. xv. 19 (vII. p. 993) ‘ Caritas
quippe Patris...nihil est quam ejus
ipsa natura atque substantia...ac per
hoc filius caritatis ejus nullus est alius
quam qui de ejus substantia est geni-
tus.’ See also Orig. c. Cels. v.11. Thus
these words are intimately connected
With the expressions which follow,
eikav TOU Ocovd Tod dopdrov (ver. 15),
and év air@ eddoxnoey wav rd my-
popa karotxioas (ver. 19). The loose
interpretation, which makes rod viod
Tis ayamns equivalent to rod viod rod
nyarnpévov, destroys the whole force
of the expression.

In the preceding verses we have a
striking illustration of St Paul’s teach-
ing in two important respects. First.
The reign of Christ has already begun.
His kingdom is a present kingdom.
Whatever therefore is essential in the
kingdom of Christ must be capable of

realisation now. There may be some
exceptional manifestation in the world
to come, but this cannot alter its in-
herent character. In other words the
sovereignty of Christ is essentially a
moral and spiritual sovereignty, which
has begun now and will only be per-
fected hereafter. Secondly. Corre-
sponding to this, and equally signi-
ficant, is his language in speaking of
individual Christians. He regards
them as already rescued from the
power of darkness, as already put in
possession of their inheritance as
saints. They are potentially saved,
because the knowledge of God is itself
salvation, and this knowledge is within
their reach. Such is St Paul’s con-
stant mode of speaking. He uses the
language not of exclusion, but of com-
prehension. He prefers to dwell on
their potential advantages, rather than
on their actual attainments. He hopes
to make them saints by dwelling on
their calling as saints. See especially
Ephes. ii. 6 cuvjpyeipev kai ovvexabioer
€v Tots erroupaviots ev XpioT@ Inoov kK...

14. é€youev] For the reading éc-
xowev, Which is possibly correct here,
and which carries out the idea en-
forced in the last note, see the de-
tached note on the various readings.
In the parallel passage, Ephes. i. 7,
there is the same variation of reading.

THY amod’Tpacty] ‘ransom, redemp-
tion.’ The image of a captive and en-
slaved people is still continued: Philo
Omn. prod. lib. 17 (I. p. 463) aiypa-
Awros annyOn...amoyvovs amro\UTpocw,
Plut. Vit. Pomp. 24 modeov aiypa-
A@rov arodvtpecers. The metaphor
however has changed from the victor
who rescues the captive by force ofarms
(ver. 13 épvcaro) to the philanthropist
who releases him by the payment of a
ransom. The clause which follows in
the received text, dia rod aiparos av-
rov, is interpolated from the parallel
passage, Ephes. i. 7.

a SEIT

I, 14]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

143

> , 5) ~ 142 te oF \ . r) i 4
dyarns avTov, “év w exouey THY aToNVTEWOW, THY

adeow THY auapTiOV

14. & @ Ecxoper.

ry adeow Trav duaptiav] So in the
parallel passage Ephes. i. 7 the Apo-
stle defines tv dmodvrpaciw as Thy
adeow tav mapantroparav. May not
this studied precision point to some
false conception of dzodvrpwois put
forward by the heretical teachers?
Later Gnostics certainly perverted the
meaning of the term, applying it to
their own formularies of initiation.
This is related of the Marcosians by
Irenzeus i. 13. 6 d1a tiv droddtpacww
axpatnrovs Kal doparovs yiverOar TO
Kpit7 K.T.A. i, 21. 1 Goot yap eice
TavTns THS yvoOuns pvoraywyol, Tocav-
Tat kat drodvtpacets, 10. § 4 eivar dé
Tedelay drodUTpwcw avriy Thy ériyve-
aw Tov dppyrov peyéOovs (with the
whole context), and Hippolytus Har.
Vi. 41 A€youotl te Povy appyre, emert-
Oévres xeipa TH THY dmod’Tpec ha-
Bovre x.t.A. (comp. ix. 13). In sup-
port of their nomenclature they per-
verted such passages as the text, Iren.
i, 21. 2 rov Iladdov pyntas packovor
tiv év Xpior@ Incod drodvrpwow Tod-
Adkis peunvuxévat. It seems not im-
probable that the communication of
similar mystical secrets, perhaps con-
nected with their angelology (ii. 18),
was put forward by these Colossian
false teachers as an droAvrpwors. Com-
pare the words in the baptismal for-
mula of the Marcosians as given in
Iren. i. 21. 3 (comp. Theodt. Hear.
Lab. i. 9) eis wow Kai dro tpwcty Kat
Kowoviay Tov Suvdyewv, where the last
words (which have been differently
interpreted) must surely mean ‘com-
munion with the (spiritual) powers.’
Thus it is a parallel to cis Avtpocw
ayyeAtxnv, Which appears in an alter-
native formula of these heretics given
likewise by Ireneus in the context;
for this latter is explained in Clem.
Alex. Huc. Theod. p. 974, eis kitpaow

dyyeXxjv, touTéotiv, fy Kat ayyedos
éyovo.w. Any direct historical con-
nexion between the Colossian heretics
and these later Gnostics of the Valen-
tinian school is very improbable ; but
the passages quoted will serve to show
how a false idea of droAvrpaors would
naturally be associated with an eso-
teric doctrine of angelic powers. See
the note on i. 28 tva wapactycoper
mavra avOpwroy Tédetov.

15 sq. In the passage which fol-
lows St Paul defines the Person of
Christ, claiming for Him the absolute
supremacy,

(1) In relation to the Universe, the

Natural Creation (vv. 15—17) ;,

(2) In relation to the Church, the
new Moral Creation (ver. 18) ;
and he then combines the two, iva
yérnta év waaay avros mperevov, CX-
plaining this twofold sovereignty by the
absolute indwelling of the pleroma in
Christ, and showing how, as a conse-
quence, the reconciliation and har-
mony of all things must be eXected
in Him (vv. 19, 20).

As the idea of the Zogos underlies:
the whole of this passage, though the
term itself does not appear, a few
words explanatory of this term will be
necessary by way of preface. The
word Adyos then, denoting both ‘rea-
son’ and ‘speech,’ was a philosophical
term adopted by Alexandrian Juda-
ism before St Paul wrote, to express
the manifestation of the Unseen God,
the Absolute Being, in the creation
and government of the World. It
included all modes by which God
makes Himself known to man. As
His reason, it denoted His purpose
or design; as His speech, it implied
His revelation. Whether this Adyos
was conceived merely as the divine’
energy personified, or. whether the’

144

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[I. 15

~ ~ lant 9 , /
8s €oTW Eikwy TOU QEov TOU dopaTou, TpwWTOTOKOS

conception took a more concrete form,
I need not stop now to enquire ; but
I hope to give a fuller account of the
matter in a later volume. It is suf-
ficient for the understanding of what
follows to say that Christian teachers,
when they adopted this term, exalted
and fixed its meaning by attaching
to it two precise and definite ideas :
(1) ‘The Word is a Divine Person,’
6 oyos Hv mpos TOV Oedy Kal Oeds Hy
6 Adyos ; and (2) ‘The Word became
incarnate in Jesus Christ,’ 6 Adyos
oapé éeyévero. Itis obvious that these
two propositions must have altered
materially the significance of all the
subordinate terms connected with the
idea of the Adyos; and that therefore
their use in Alexandrian writers, such
as Philo, cannot be taken to define;
though it may be brought to dJlus-
trate, their meaning in St Paul and
St John. With these cautions the
Alexandrian phraseology, as a pro-
vidential preparation for the teaching
of the Gospel, will afford important
aid in the understanding of the Apo-
stolic writings.

15—17. ‘He is the perfect image,
the visible representation, of the un-
seen God. He is the Firstborn, the
absolute Heir of the Father, begotten
before the ages; the Lord of the
Universe by virtue of primogeniture,
and by virtue also of creative agency.
For in and through Him the whole
world was created, things in heaven
and things on earth, things visible
to the outward eye and things cog-
nisable by the inward perception. His
supremacy is absolute and universal.
All powers in heaven and earth are
subject to Him. This subjection ex-
tends even to the most exalted and
most potent of angelic beings, whether
they be called Thrones or Domina-
tions or Princedoms or Powers, or
whatever title of dignity men may
confer upon them. Yes: He is first
and He is last. Through Him, as the

mediatorial Word, the universe has
been created ; and unto Him, as the
final goal, it is tending. In Him is
no before or after. He is pre-existent
and self-existent before all the worlds.
And in Him, as the binding and sus-
taining power, universal nature co-
heres and consists.’

I5. Os éorw«k.t.Ar.] The Person of
Christ is described first in relation
more especially to Deity, as eixav rod
Gcod tov doparov, and secondly in
relation more especially to created
things, as mpwroroKxos maons Kriceas.
The fundamental conception of the
Logos involves the idea of mediation
between God and creation. A per-
verted view respecting the nature of
the mediation between the two lay,
as we have seen, at the root of the
heretical teaching at Colossz (p. 34,
p. IOI sq., p. 115 sq.), and required to
be met by the trae doctrine of Christ
as the Hternal Logos.

eixdv] ‘the image.’ This expres-
sion is used repeatedly by Philo, asa
description of the Logos; de Mund.

Op. 8 (1. p. 6) tov ddparoy Kai vonroy
| Ociov Adyov eixova Réyes Ceov, de

Confus. ling. 20 (1. p. 419) rhy eixova
avrov, Tov tepw@rarov Adyov, ib. § 28
(I. p. 427) tijs didlov etxdvos avrod d6-
you tov iepwrarov x.t.d., de Profug.
Ig (I. p. 561) 6 vmepavw tovrwv éyos
Oetos...avTos eikav vmdpyav Ceov, de
Monarch, ii. 5 (Il p. 225) Adyos bé
€otw eikav Ocov Ov ov cupmas 6 KO-
apos €dnutoupyeiro, de Somn. i. 4t
(I. p. 656), etc. For the use which
Philo made of the text Gen. i. 26, 27,
kat eikova 7juerépay, Kat’ eixova Qcoi,
see the note on iii, 10. Still earlier
than Philo, before the idea of the A¢é-
yos had assumed such a definite form,
the term was used of the Divine copia
personified in Wisd. vii. 26 dravyacpya
yap €ort hords aidiov...cal elkady this
dyaOornros avrod. St Paul himself
applies the term to our Lord in an
earlier epistle,.2 Cor. iv. 4 ris déEns

I. 15]

rod Xpicrov ds éeoriw eixdy Tob Ocod
(comp. iii. 18 ryv avrnv eikova pera-
poppotpeba). Closely allied to eixdy
also is yapaxrnp, which appears in the
same connexion in Heb. i. 3 av dmav-
yaopa tis dons Kal xapaxtyp Ths vro-
oTdoews avrov, a passage illustrated
by Philo de Plant. 5 (1. p. 332) odpa-
yidt Geod Hs 6 xapaxtnp éotw aidios
Adyos. See also Phil. ii. 6 év poppy
cod imdpyor.

Beyond the very obvious notion of
likeness, the word eixév involves two
other ideas ;

(1) Representation. In this re-
spect it is allied to yapaxryjp, and dif-
fers from opotwza. In opoiwpa the
resemblance may be accidental, as
one egg is like another; but eixody
implies an archetype of which it is a
copy, as Greg. Naz. Orat. 30 (I. p. 554)
SayS arn yap eixovos voi pipnpa
civat Tou dpxervmov. So too Io. Da-
masc. de Imag. i. 9 (I. p. 311) eixody
€or opoioya yxapakrnpifoy ro
mpeorotumov; comp. Philo de Mund.
Op. 23 (I. p. 16). On this difference
see Trench NV. 7. Synon. § xv. p. 47.
The eixav might be the result of direct
imitation (yipntixn) like the head of
@ sovereign on a coin, or it might be
due to natural causes (dvarxy) like
the parental features in the child,
but in any case it was derived from
its prototype: see Basil. de Spir.
Sanct. 18 § 45 (1. p. 38). The word
itself however does not necessarily
imply perfect representation. Thus
man is said to be the image of God;

1 Cor. xi. 7 elxav cai Sofa Geod vmap-

xov, Clem. Rom. 33 dvOpwrovr...tijs
€avTov e€ikdvos xapaxtipa. Thus again
an early Judeo-Christian writer so
designates the duly appointed bishop,
as the representative of the Divine au-
thority ; Clem. Hom. iii. 62 os eixova
cov mpotisovras. The idea of per-
fection does not lie in the word itself,
but must be sought from the context
(¢.g. wav TO mAjpopa ver. 19). The
use which was made of this expression,
and especially of this passage, in the

COL.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

145

Christological controversies of the
fourth and fifth centuries may be seen
from the patristic quotations in Petay,
Theol. Dogm. de Trin. ii. 11. 9 8q.,
vi. 5. 6.

(2) Manifestation. This idea comes
from the implied contrast to rod do-
parov Geov. St Chrysostom indeed
maintains the direct opposite, arguing
that, as the archetype is invisible, so
the image must be invisible also, 7
Tov doparov eikav Kat adry doparos Kat
opoiws ddparos. So too Hilary c.
Const. Imp. 21 (m1. p. 378) ‘ut imago
invisibilis Dei, etiam per id quod ipse
invisibilis est, invisibilis Dei imago
esset.’ And this was the view of the
Nicene’ and post-Nicene fathers gene-
rally. But the underlying idea of the
eixdv, and indeed of the Adyos gene-
rally, is the manifestation of the hid-
den : comp. Philo de Vit, Moys. ii. 12
(Il. p. 144) eixadv ris dopdrov dicews
eugparys. And adopted into Christian
theology, the doctrine of the Adyos
expresses this conception still more
prominently by reason of the Incarna-
tion; comp. Tertull. adv. Mare. v. 19
‘Scientes filium semper retro visum, si
quibus visus est in Dei nomine, ut
imaginem ipsius, Hippol. c. Noet. 7
dua yap ris eixovos dpoias rvyxavovans
evyvworos o matnp yivera, ib.
§ 12, 13, Orig. in Loann. vi. § 2 (1v.
p. 104). Among the post-Nicene fa-
thers too St Basil has caught the right
idea, Hpist. xxxviii. 8 (m1. p. 121) 6
tis elxdvos KaTravonoas KdAXos éy ept-
voia Tov apxerumou vyiverat...BAé€reww dia
TOUTOU €keivoy...Td ayévynTrov KdAXos év
TO yevvnt@ xatonrevoas. The Word,
whether pre-incarnate or incarnate,
is the revelation of the unseen Father :
comp. John i. 18 Gedy ovdeis édpa-
kev T@ToTE’ povoyerns OEds, 6 dv eis
Tov KOAmov Tov marTpos, éxeivos €Eny7-
gato, XiV. 9,10 6 éwpakds épée éd-
pakev Tov marépa’ mas od Reyes,
AetEov jpiv rov marépa; (compared
with vi. 46 ody dri roy marépa éwpaxerv
tis x.t.A.). The epithet doparov how-
ever must not be confined to the ap-

10

146 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

‘prehension of the bodily senses, but
will include the cognisance of the in-
ward eye also.

mpwrToroxos maons krticews| ‘the
First-born ofall creation” The word
mperoroxos has a twofold parentage :

(1) Like eixey it is closely con-
nected with and taken from the Alex-
andrian vocabulary of the Logos. The
word however which Philo applies to
the Adyos is not mpwroroxos but mpo-
royovos: de Agric. 12 (I. p. 308) mpo-
oTngdpevos TOY OpOdv avTov Adyor TpPa-
royovoy vicv, de Somn. i. 37 (I. p. 653)
6 mpwToyovos avtov Oeios Noyos, de
Confus. ling. i. 28 (I. p. 427) omovda-
(érw KoopetcOa Kata TOY mpwToyovoy
avTov Adyov: comp. ib. i. 14 (I. p. 414)
TovToy mpeaBUratoy viov 6 TaY OYT@V
dvéretde TraTnp, ov érépobt mpwroyovov
evopace: and this designation mpec-
Buraros vids is several times applied
to the Adyos. Again in Quis rer. div.
her. § 24 (1 p. 489) the language of
Exod. xiii. 2 adylacov pot way mpwroro-
Kov mporoyeves k.7.A. is So interpreted
as to apply to the Divine Word. These
appellations, ‘the first-begotten, the
eldest son,’ are given to the Logos by
Philo, because in his philosophy it
includes the original conception, the
archetypal idea, of creation, which
was afterwards realised in the mate-
rial world. Among the early Chris-
tian fathers Justin Martyr again and
again recognises the application of the
verm mpororoxos to the Word; Apol.
1. 23 (p. 68) Adyos avrod vmdpxwr kat
mpwtoroKos Kal dvvapts, 7b. § 46 (p. 83)
Tov Xpiotov mpwroroxoy Tod Oeod etvat
.. Adyov dvra ov may yevos avOpdérav
peréeaxe, tb. § 33 (p. 75 ©) rov Aoyov ds
Kal mpwrorokos T@ Ge@ eott. So too
Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 22 rotroy tov
Aoyov eyevynoev mpohorikdv, mpwroTo-
Kov Tacs KTiTEws.

(2) The word mparoroxos had also
another not less important link of
connexion with the past. The Mes-
sianic reference of Ps. lxxxix. 28, eyo
mpwrotokoy Ojcouat avToy x.T.A., SEEMS
to have beon generally allowed. So

5 Be @

at least it is interpreted by R. Nathan
in Shemoth Rabba 19, fol. 118. 4, ‘God
said, As I made Jacob a first-born
(Exod. iv. 22), so also will I make
king Messiah a first-born (Ps, lxxxix.
28). Hence ‘the first-born’ 6 rparé-
rokos (1132) used absolutely, became
a recognised title of Messiah. The
way had been paved for this Messianic
reference of mpawrdroxos by its prior
application to the Israelites, as the
prerogative race, Exod. iv. 22 ‘ Israel
is my son, my first-born’: comp. Psalm.
Salom. xviii. 4 7 madela cov éd’ juas
@s viov mpwroroxoy povoyery, 4 Esdr. vi.
58 ‘nos populus tuus, quem vocasti

primogenitum, unigenitum, where the |

combination of the two titles applied
in the New Testament to the Son is
striking. Here, as elsewhere (see the
note on Gal. iii. 16 kal trois oméppacw
k.7.A.), the terms are transferred from
the race to the Messiah, as the repre-
sentative, the embodiment, of the race.

As the Person of Christ was the
Divine response alike to the philoso-
phical questionings of the Alexan-
drian Jew and to the patriotic hopes
of the Palestinian, these two currents
of thought meet in the term mpard-
Tokos aS applied to our Lord, who is
both the true Logos and the true
Messiah. For this reason, we may
suppose, as well as for others, the
Christian Apostles preferred zpord-
toxos tO mpwtdyovos, Which (as we may
infer from Philo) was the favourite
term with the Alexandrians, because
the former alone would include the
Messianic reference as well.

The main ideas then which the word
involves are twofold; the one more
directly connected with the Alexan-
drian conception of the Logos, the
other more nearly allied to the Pales-
tinian conception of the Messiah.

(1) Priority to all creation. In
other words it declares the absolute
pre-existence of the Son. At first
sight it might seem that Christ is
here regarded as one, though the
earliest, of created beings. This in-

a

—
ee
ae

aS

ame

I. 15]

terpretation however is not required
by the expression itself. The fathers
of the fourth century rightly called
attention to the fact that the Apostle
writes not mpewrdxtictos, but mpwro-
roxos; e.g. Basil. c. Hunom. iv (1
p. 292). Much earlier, in Clem. Alex.
Exe. Theod. 10 (p. 970), though with-
out any direct reference to this pas-
sage, the povoyev)s Kal mpororoxos is
contrasted with the mpwroxricror, the
highest order of angelic beings; and
the word mpwrdéxtiaros occurs more
than once elsewhere in his writings (e.g.
Strom. v. 14, p. 699). . Nor again does
the genitive case necessarilyimply that
the mpardroxos Himself belonged to
the xriovs, as will be shown presently.
And if this sense is not required by the
words themselves, it is directly exclud-
ed by the context. It is inconsistent
_ alike with the universal agency in
creation which is ascribed to Him in
the words following, ev avr@ €xria6n
Ta mayra, and with the absolute pre-
existence and self-existence which is
claimed for Him just below, avros
éotiv mpo mavtav. We may add also
that it is irreconcilable with other
passages in the Apostolic writings,
while it contradicts the fundamental
idea of the Christian consciousness.
Moreespecially the description rpard-
Toxes maons KTicews must be interpret-
ed in such a way that it is not incon-
sistent with His other title of povoye-
vns, unicus, alone of His kind and
therefore distinct from created things.
The two words express the same
eternal fact; but while povoyevns
states it in itself, tpwrdroxos places it
in relation to the Universe. The
correct interpretation is supplied by
Justin Martyr, Dial. § 100 (p. 326
D) mpwrdroxoy Tov Ocod Kal mpd may-
Tov tov kticparev. He does not
indeed mention this passage, but it
was doubtless in his mind, for he else-
where uses the very expression mpo-
Torokos mdons kticewas, Dial. § 85
__ (p. 311 B), § 438 (p. 367 D); comp. also
| § 84 (p. 3108), where the words zoo-

EPISTLE TO THH COLOSSIANS.

147

TOTOKOS TOY TavT@Y ToinLdrey Occur.

(2) Sovereignty over all creation.
God’s ‘first-born’ is the natural ruler,
the acknowledged head, of God’s
household. The right of primogeni-
ture appertains to Messiah over all
created things. Thus in Ps. Ixxxix.
28 after mparoroxoy Onoopar avrov
the explanation is added, dwndov
mapa Tois Baciwedow ris yijs, ie. (as
the original implies) ‘above all the
kings of the earth.’ In its Messianic
reference this secondary idea of
sovereignty predominated in the word
mpwrorokos, 80 that from this point of
VieW mpwtoroxos mdons kticews would
mean ‘Sovereign Lord over all crea-
tion by virtue of primogeniture.’ Tho
€Onkev kAnpovopoy mavrwy of the Apo-
stolic writer (Heb. i. 2) exactly cor-
responds to the @ncouat mpwrdtokoy
of the Psalmist (lxxxix. 28), and
doubtless was tacitly intended as a
paraphrase and application of this
Messianic passage. So again in Heb.
Xil. 23, exkAnoia mpwrordxar, the most
probable explanation of the word is
that which makes it equivalent to
‘heirs of the kingdom, all faithful
Christians being tpso facto rpwréroxot,
because all are kings, Nay, so com-
pletely might this idea of dominion by
virtue of priority eclipse the primary
sense of the term ‘first-born’ in some
of its uses, that it is given as a title to
God Himself by R. Bechai on the Pen-
tateuch, fol. 124. 4, ‘Who is primo-
genitus mundi, dow by yn sinw,
i.6 ds €oTw mpwréoroKos Tod KogpoV, as
it would be rendered in Greek. In this
same work again, fol. 74. 4, Exod. xiii,
2 is falsely interpreted so that God is
represented as calling Himself ‘ pri-
mogenitus’: see Schdttgen p. 922.
For other instances of secondary uses
of 33 in the Old Testament, where
the idea of ‘priority of birth’ is over-
shadowed by and lost in the idea of
‘pre-eminence, see Job xviii, 13 ‘the
first-born of death,’ Is. xiv. 30 ‘the
first-born of the poor’

maons xticews| ‘of all creation,

10—2

148 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

rather than ‘of every created thing.’
The three senses of xriovs in the New
Testament are: (1) creation, as the
act of creating, e.g. Rom. i. 20 amo
Ktiaews KOgpouv: (2) creation, as the
ageregate of created things, Mark xiii.
19 adm dpxijs ktiacws tv extirev 0 Oeds
(where the parallel passage, Matt.
xxiv. 21, has dw dpyxijs kdepov), Rom.
viii. 22 maca wy kriats cvaotevacer: (3)
a creation, a single created thing, a
creature, e.g. Rom. viii. 39 ovre tts
xtiots érépa, Heb. iv. 13 ov €orw
xtiows adavns. As xriots without the
definite article is sometimes used of
the created world generally (e. g. Mark
xiii. 19), and indeed belongs to the
category of anarthrous nouns like
Kogpos, yj, ovpaves, etc. (see Winer
§ xix. p. 1498q.), it is best taken so
here. Indeed wdons xricews, in the
sense of mavros xticparos, would be
awkward in this connexion; for mpo-
roroxos seems to require either a col-
lective noun, or a plural macdyv rov
xticewv. In ver. 23 the case is differ-
ent (see the note there). The anar-
throus waoa xriows is found in Judith
ix. 12 Baowked maons xticews cov,
while raca 7 xriows occurs in Judith
xvi. 14, Mark xvi. 15, Rom. viii. 22,
Clem. Rom. 19, Mart. Polyc. 14. For
was, signifying ‘ad/,’ and not ‘every,’
when attached to this class of nouns,
see Winer § xviii. p. 137.

The genitive case must be inter-
preted so as to include the full mean-
ing of mpwrdoroxos, as already ex-
plained. It will therefore signify :
‘He stands in the relation of mpwrtd-
rokos to all creation, i.e. ‘He is the
Firstborn, and, as the Firstborn, the
absolute Heir and sovereign Lord, of
all creation.’ The connexion is the
same as in the passage of R. Bechai
already quoted, where God is called
primogenitus mundi. Another ex-
planation which would connect the
genitive with the first part of the com-
pound alone (zpero-), comparing Joh.
i. 15, 30, mporos pov nv, unduly strains
the grammar, while it excludes the

has a

idea of ‘heirship, sovereignty.’

The history of the patristic exegesis
of this expression is not without a pain-
ful interest. All the fathers of the
second and third centuries without
exception, so far as I have noticed,
correctly refer it to the Eternal
Word and not to the Incarnate Christ,
to the Deity and not to the hu-
manity of our Lord. So Justin /.c.,
Theophilus Zc, Clement of Alexan-
dria Lac. Theod. 7, 8, 19 (pp. 967,
973), Tertullian adv. Prax. 7, adv.
Mare. v. 19, Hippolytus Her. x. 33,
Origen c. Cels. vi. 47, 63, 64, ete, in
foann. i. § 22 (tv. p. 21), xix. § 5 (p.
305), xxviii. § 14 (p. 392), Cyprian
Test. ii. 1, Novatian de Trin. 16, and
the Synod of Antioch (Routh’s Rel.
Sacr. Il. pp. 290, 293). The Arian

controversy however gave a dif- —

ferent turn to the exegesis of the
passage. The Arians fastened upon
the expression mpwrdrokxos mdons kri-
oews, and drew from it the inference
that the Son was a created being.
The great use which they made of
the text appears from the document
in Hilary, Yragm. Hist. Op. 1. p.
644. The right answer to this false
interpretation we have already seen.
Many orthodox fathers however, not
satisfied with this, transferred the
expression into a new sphere, and
maintained that mpwrdtoxos mdons
xtioews describes the Incarnate Christ.
By so doing they thought to cut up
the Arian argument by the roots. As
a consequence of this interpretation,
they were obliged to understand the
xriots and the kxri¢eo Ga in the context
of the new spiritual creation, the
kaw KTiows Of 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15.
Thus interpreted, awpwrdroxos mdons
xticews here becomes nearly equiva-
lent to mpwrorokos €v mrodXois ddedgois
in Rom. viii. 29. The arguments al-
leged in favour of this interpretation
are mainly twofold: (1) That, if ap-
plied to the Divine nature, spwrorokos
would contradict povoyer7s which else-
where describes the nature of the

i tan
iho’

I. 15]

Eternal Son. But those who main-
tained, and rightly maintained, that
mperorokos (Luke ii. 7) did not neces-
sarily imply that the Lord’s mother
had other sons, ought not to have
been led away by this fallacy. (2) That
mpororoxos in other passages (e.g.
Rom. viii. 29, Rey. i. 5, and just be-
low, ver. 18) is applied to the hu-
manity of Christ. But elsewhere, in
Heb. i. 6 drav 5€ madw cicayayn Tov
mpwroroxov «.7.v., the term must al-
most necessarily refer to the pre-
existence of the Son; and moreover
the very point of the Apostle’s lan-
guage in the text (as will be seen pre-
sently) is the parallelism in the two
relations of our Lord—His relation to
the natural creation, as the Eternal
Word, and His relation to the spiritual
creation, as the Head of the Church—
so that the same word (mpwrdrokos
maons KTicews Ver. 15, mpwrorokos ék
Tov vexpaoy Ver. 18) is studiously used of
both. A false exegesis is sure to bring a
nemesis on itself. Logical consistency
required that thisinterpretation should
be carried farther; and Marcellus, who
was never deterred by any considera-
tions of prudence, took this bold step.
He extended the principle to the
whole context, including even eixov
Tov doparov Geov, which likewise he
interpreted of our Lord’s humanity.
In this way a most important Christo-
logical passage was transferred into
an alien sphere; and the strongest
argument against Arianism melted
away in the attempt to combat Arian-
ism on false grounds. The criticisms
of Eusebius on Marcellus are perfectly
just: Eccl. Theol. i. 20 (p. 96) radra
mept ths Oeornros Tod viov Tov Cecoi,
Kav py MapkédX@ Boxy, eipntat’ ov yap
mept Tis oapkos eimev Gy rocadra 6
Ocios droatodos K.T.A.; comp. 2b. ii. 9
(p. 67), iii. 6sq. (p. 175), c. Marcell. i.
I (—p. 6), i. 2 (p. 12), ii, 3 (pp. 43,
46 sq., 48).. The objections to this
interpretation are threefold: (1) It
disregards the history of the terms
in their connexion with the pre-

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

149

Christian speculations of Alexandrian
Judaism. These however, though di-
rectly or indirectly they were present
to the minds of the earlier fathers
and kept them in the right exegetical
path, might very easily have escaped
a writer in the fourth century. (2) It
shatters the context. To suppose
that such expressions as é€y avr@ €-
kticOn ra mavra[ra] év rots ovpavois Kat
[ra] emi ris yas, OY ra mavra Sv avrou
.-EKTLOTaL, OF Ta TayTa évy a’T@ cuve-
ornxev, refer to the work of the Incar-
nation, is to strain language in a way
which would reduce all theoiogical
exegesis to chaos; and yet this, as
Marcellus truly saw, is a strictly logi-
cal consequence of the interpretation
which refers mpwroroxos maons kticews
to Christ’s humanity. (3) It takes no
account of the cosmogony and angel-
ology of the false teachers against
which the Apostle’s exposition here
is directed (see above, pp. 101 sq.,
110 sq., 115 8q.). This interpretation
is given by St Athanasius c. Arian.
ii. 62 sq. (I. p. 4198q.) and appears
again in Greg. Nyss. c. Hunom. ii.
(IL. pp. 451—453, 492), 2b. iii, (IL p.
540—545), de Perf. (Ii. p. 290 8q.),
Cyril Alex. Thes. 25, p. 236 sq., de
Trin. Dial. iv. p. 517 sq. vi. p. 625 8q.,
Anon. Chrysost. Op. VIII. p. 223, appx.
(quoted as Chrysostom by Photius
Bibl. 277). So too Cyril expresses
himself at the Council of Ephesus,
Labb. Conc. 1. p. 652 (ed. Colet).
St Athanasius indeed does not confine
the expression to the condescension
(cvyxardBaors) Of the Word in the In-
carnation, but includes also a prior
condescension in the Creation of the
world (see Bull Def. Fid. Nic. iii. 9 §
I, with the remarks of Newman Select
Treatises of S. Athanasius I. pp. 278,
368 sq.). This double reference how-
ever only confuses the exegesis of
the passage still further, while theo-
logically it might lead to very serious
difficulties. In another work, Hzpos.
Fid. 3 (1. p. 80), he seems to take a
truer view of its meaning. St Basil,

150

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[I. 16

/, , 16 «/ > > ~ 9 ? \ / \
Tacns KTigews: “OTL év avTw exTio?y Ta TayTa, [ra |

who to an equally clear appreciation
of doctrine generally unites a sounder
exegesis than St Athanasius, while men-
tioning the interpretation which refers
the expression to Christ’s human na-
ture, himself prefers explaining it
of the Eternal Word; c. Hunom. iv. (I.
p. 292). Of the Greek commentators
on this passage, Chrysostom’s view is
not clear; Severianus (Cram. Cat. p.
303) and Theodoret understand it
rightly of the Eternal Word ; while
Theodore of Mopsuestia (Cram. Cat.
pp. 305, 308, 309, Rab. Maur. Op. vI.
p. 511 sq. ed. Migne) expresses him-
self very strongly on the opposite
side, Like Marcellus, he carries the
interpretation consistently into the
whole context, explaining év avré,to
refer not to the original creation (xr!
ois) but to the moral re-creation
(dvaxruots), and referring eixay to the
Incarnation in the same way. Ata
later date, when the pressure of an
immediate controversy has passed
away, the Greek writers generally
concur inthe earlier and truer inter-
pretation of the expression. Thus
John Damascene (de Orthod. Fid. iv.
8, I. p. 2588q-), Theophylact (ad loc.),
and Cicumenius (ad doc.), all explain
it of Christ?s Divine Nature. Among
Latin writers there is more diver-
sity of interpretation. While Ma-
rius Victorinus (adv. Arium i. 24, p.
1058, ed. Migne), Hilary of Poictiers
(Tract. in ti Ps. § 28 8q., l. p. 47 8q.; de
Trin. viii. 50, IL. p. 248 sq.),and Hilary
the commentator (ad loc.), take it of
the Divine Nature, Augustine (Zxpos.
ad fom. 56, U1. p. 914) and Pelagius
(ad loc.) understand it of the Incarnate
Christ. This sketch of the history of
the interpretation of the expression
would not be complete without a re-
ference to another very different ex-
planation. Isidore of Pelusium, Zpist.
ili. 31 (p. 268), would strike out a new
path of interpretation altogether (e7
kat Od€auui tice Kaworépav épunvelas

dvaréuvey oddv), and for the passive
mpwrdrokos suggests reading the active
mperoroxos, alluding to the use of this
latter word in Homer (ZU. xvii. 5 pprnp |
MPOTOTOKOS...00 mply eidvia ToKOLO:
comp. Plat. Theet. 151 ¢ domep ai
mpetorokot). Thus St Paul is made
to say that Christ apérov reroxéva.,
TOUTEOTL, TeTroInKévat THY KTioW.

16. 6rtx.7.A.] We have in this sen-
tence the justification of the title
given to the Son in the preceding
clause, mpwroroxos wrdons kticews. 1b
must therefore be taken to explain
the sense in which this title is used.
Thus connected, it shows that the
mpwtoroxos Himself is not included
in raoa xricis; for the expression
used is not ra ddda or Ta dowd, but
Ta mavra éxtic6y—words which are
absolute and comprehensive, and will
admit no exception.

ev avt@] ‘in Him, as below ver.
17 ev avt@ ovvéctnkev. For the pre-
position comp. Acts xvii. 28 éy aire
yap (dpuev Kal kwovpeba kai éoper.
All the laws and purposes which
guide the creation and government
of the Universe reside in Him, the
Hternal Word, as their meeting-point.
The Apostolic doctrine of the Logos
teaches us to regard the Eternal
Word as holding the same relation to
the Universe which the Incarnate
Christ holds to the Church. He is
the source of its life, the centre of all
its developments, the mainspring of
all its motions. The use of éy to
describe His relations to the Church
abounds in St Paul (e.g. Rom. viii. 1,
2, Xll. 5, Xvi. 3, 7, 9, ete., 1 Cor. i, 30,
iv. 15, 17, Vil. 39, xv. 18, 22, etc.), and
more especially in the Epistles to the
Colossians and Ephesians (e.g. below
ii. 7, 10). In the present passage, as
in ver. 17, the same preposition is
applied also to His relations to the
Universe; comp. Joh. i. 4 & airé
(a7 jv (more especially if we connect
the preceding 6 yéyorev with it)

oe ees

} y ed

ev oes

seach
aa cars

eee

eS
a
| “4 >

I. 16]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

151

5) ~ p) ~ \ \ > \ ~ - \ ¢ \
év Tois ovpavois Kai | Ta] éxt THS ys, Ta OpaTa Kal Ta

Thus it is part of the parallelism
which runs through the whole pas-
sage, and to which the occurrence of
aperorokos in both relations gives the
key. TheJudzo-Alexandrian teachers
represented the Logos, which in their
view was nothing more than the
Divine mind energizing, as the rozos
where the eternal ideas, the vonrés
koopos, had their abode; Philo de
Mund. Op. 4 (I. p. 4) doamep év exeive
vonrd, 0.8 5 (Pp. 4) ovdé o ék TOY Wedv
kégpos G\Xov ay éxoe TOTOV Tov
Ociov Aoyoy Trav tavta dSiaxocpycavra,
ib. § 10 (p. 8) 6 dowparos Kécpos...
idpvdcls év TH Ocim hoyp; and see
especially de Migr. ‘Abr. I A Pp: 437)
oixos év © Siaitara...dca ay évOvpi-
para TéKn, Gorep ev oiko TH oye dia-
deis. The Apostolic teaching is an
enlargement of this conception, inas-
much as the Logos is no longer a
philosophical abstraction but a Di-
vine Person: see Hippol. Her. x
33 airvov Tois ywvopevors Adyos Hv, év
éaut@ hépov to Oédew Tov yeyevvn-
KOTOS...€xel EV EAUTG TAS ev TH TaTph
mpoevvonbciaas ideas GOev Kedevovros
matpos yiverOat Koopoy TO KaTa év Ad-
yos dmereheiro dpéoxay Oecd: comp.
Orig. in Joann. i, § 22, IV. p. 21.
extio6n| The aorist is used here;
the perfect below. ’Exric$n describes
the definite historical act of creation ;
éxricrat the continuous and present
relations of creation to the Creator :
comp. Joh. i. 3 xapis avrod éyévero
ovde év with ib. 6 yéyovey, I Cor. ix. 22
éyevopny tos adobevéow aobevns With
iD. Tols Tacw yéyova tavra, 2 Cor. xii.
17 py Twa ov dméartadka With yer. 18
kai cuvaméoretXa Tov adeAddy, I Joh.
iv. Q Tov povoyerh améaradkev 6
Gecds cis Tov Kocpor iva (nowpev bv ad-
rov with ver. 10 dért avrés nyannoev
nas Kal dméoretXey Tov viov avrod.
ra mavra| ‘the universe of things,
not mayra ‘all things severally,’ but
ra ravra ‘all things collectively” With
very few exceptions, wherever this

phrase occurs elsewhere, it stands ina
similar connexion ; see below, vv. 17,
20, iii, 11, Rom. xi. 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6,
xi. 12, xii. 6, xv. 27, 28, 2 Cor. v. 18,
Eph. i. 10, 11, 23, iv. 10, Heb. i. 3,
li. 8, Rev. iv. 11. Compare Rom. viii.
32 Ta wdvra jyiv yapicera, 2 Cor. iv.
15 ra wavra &’ dpas, with 1 Cor. iii.
22 €ire KOO pos...vpoy ; and Phil. iii. 8
Ta mavta 逢nuidOnv with Matt. xvi.
26 éay Tov KOO pov ddov kepdhon. Thus
it will. appear that ra wavra is nearly
equivalent to ‘the universe’ It
stands midway between wavra and ro
wav. The last however is not a scrip-
tural phrase; for, while with ra wayra
it involves the idea of connexion, it
suggests also the unscriptural idea of
self-contained unity, the great world-
soul of the Stoic pantheist.

€v Trois ovpavois x.7-A.] This division
of the universe is not the same with
the following, as if [ra] ¢v rots ovpavois
were equivalent to ra dopara and [ra]
émt tis yns to ta opara. It should
rather be compared with Gen. i, 1
eroinaey 6 Geos Tov ovpavov kal my
yin, ii. I ouvereheg naar 6 6 ovpavos Kai
y vi kal was o Koo pos avray, xiv. say
és EKTLOEV TOV ovpaviy kal THY nV,
Rev. x. 6 6s éxrivev’ Tov ovpavoy Kat
ra év alr@ Kal THY yhv Kal Ta év adr7.
It is a classification by locality, as the
other is a classification by essences.
Heaven and earth together com-
prehend all space; and all things
whether material or immaterial are
conceived for the purposes of the
classification as having their abode in
space. Thus the sun and the moon
would belong to dpara, but they would
be év rois evpavois ; while the human
soul would be classed among ddpara
but would be regarded as émi rijs yijs ;
see below ver. 20.

It is difficult to say whether ra...raé
should be expunged or retained. The
elements in the decision are; (1) The
facility either of omission or of ad-
dition in the first clause, owing to the

152

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS,

[f. 16

sf of , , , ’ oY ’
aOpaTa, ELTE Gpovor ELTE KUPLOTYHTES, el TE apyat ELTE

termination of mavra: (2) The much
greater authority for the omission in
the first clause than in the second.
These two combined suggest that ra
was omitted accidentally in the first
clause, and then expunged purposely
in the second for the sake of uni-
formity. On the other hand there is
(3) The possibility of insertion in both
cases either for the sake of gram-
matical completeness or owing to the
parallel passages, ver. 20, Ephes. i. 10.
On the whole the reasons for their
omission preponderate. At all events
we can hardly retain the one without
the other.

ta opata x.t.A.] ‘Things material
and immaterial,’ or, according to the
language of philosophy, dacwopeva and
vovpeva: comp. Plato Phed. 79 A
Odpev ody, ef BovrdeL, Eby, Svo €ldn Trav
OvT@y, TO pev Oparor, TO ێ deLdێs, K.T.A.

eirex.t.A.| ‘whether they be thrones
or lordships, etc’? The subdivision is
no longer exhaustive. The Apostle
singles out those created beings that
from their superior rank had been or
might be set in rivalry with the Son.

A comparison with the parallel
passage Ephes. i. 21, umepdvw mdons
apxjs kai é€ovcias kat Svvapews kal
Kuplorntos Kal mavros k.T.A., brings out
the following points :

(1) No stress can be laid on the
sequence of the names, as though St
Paul were enunciating with authority
some precise doctrine respecting the
grades of the celestial hierarchy. The
names themselves are not the same
in the two passages. While apyx7, é&-
ovoia, Kvptorns, are common to both,
@povos is peculiar to the one and
dvvayis to the other. Nor again is
there any correspondence in the se-
quence. Neither does duvayis take
the place of @pdvos, nor do the three
words common to both appear in the
same order, the sequence being dpx.
é&. [Suv] kup. in Eph. i. 21, and [@pdv.]
kup. apy. e&. here.

(2) An expression in Eph. i. 21
shows the Apostle’s motive in intro-
ducing these lists of names: for he
there adds kai mavrés dvdpuartos évo-
pafopevov ov pdvoy ev TH aldm ToiTe@
adda kal ev TH pédovtt, i.e. ‘of every
dignity or title (whether real or imagi-
nary) which is reverenced,’ etc.; for
this is the force of mavros dvopares
ovopatouevov (see the. notes on Phil.
ii. 9, and Eph.é.c.). Hence it appears
that in this catalogue St Paul does
not profess to describe objective
realities, but contents himself with
repeating subjective opinions. He
brushes away all these speculations
without enquiring how much or how
little truth there may be in them,
because they are altogether beside
the question. His language here
shows the same spirit of impatience
with this elaborate angelology, as in
ii. 18.

(3) Some: commentators have re-
ferred the terms used here solely
to earthly potentates and dignities.
There can be little doubt however
that their chief and primary reference
is tc the orders of the celestial hier-
archy, as conceived by these Gnostic
Judaizers. This appears from the con-
text; for the words ra aopara imme-
diately precede this list of terms, while
in the mention of wav 1ro mAnpwpa
and in other expressions the Apostle
clearly contemplates the rivalry of
spiritual powers with Christ. It is
also demanded by the whole design
and purport of the letter, which is
written to combat the worship paid to
angels. The names too, more especially
O@povot, are especially connected with
the speculations of Jewish angelology.
But when this is granted, two questions
still remain. First; are evil as well as
good spirits included, demons as well
as angels? And next; though the
primary reference is to spiritual
powers, is it not possible that the
expression was intended to be compre-

L 16]

hensive and to include earthly dignities
as well? The clause added in the
parallel passage, od povoy ev tT aide
TovT@ «.7T.A., encourages us thus to
extend the Apostle’s meaning ; and we
are led in the same direction by the
comprehensive words which have pre-
ceded here, [ra] év ois ovpavois
x7.A. Nor is there anything in the
terms themselves which bars such an
extension; for, as will be seen, the
combination dpyat kati éfovoia is
applied not only to good angels but
to bad, not only to spiritual powers
but to earthly. Compare Ignat.
Smyrn. 6 ra émovpaua kai 7 Sdéa ray
dyyéhov kai of Gpxovres dparoi te Kal
aoparot.

Thus guided, we may paraphrase
the Apostle’s meaning as follows:
‘You dispute much about the succes-
sive grades of angels; you distinguish
each grade by its special title; you
can tell how each order was generated
from the preceding; you assign to
each its proper degree of worship.
Meanwhile you have ignored or you
have degraded Christ. I tell you, it
is not so. He is first and foremost,
Lord of heaven and earth, far above
all thrones or dominations, all prince-
doms or powers, far above every
dignity and every potentate—whether
earthly or heavenly—whether angel
or demon or man—that evokes your
reverence or excites your fear.’ See
above, pp. 103 sq.

Jewish and Judzeo-Christian specu-
lations respecting the grades of the
celestial hierarchy took various forms,
In the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs (Levi 3), which as coming
near to the Apostolic age supplies a
yaluable illustration (see Galatians
p- 307 sq.), these orders are arranged
as follows: (1) @povor, éEovcia, these
two in the highest or seventh heaven;
(2) of ayyedou of hépovres tas dro-
Kpivets Tois ayyeAos TOU mpoce@mov in
the sixth heaven; (3) of dyyeAou rod

‘gpooamov in the fifth heaven; (4) of

dycot in the fourth heaven; (5) ai duva-

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 153

pets tov mapepBortoy in the third
heaven ; (6) ra mvevpara ray émaywyav
(i.e. of visitations, retributions) in the
second heaven: or perhapsthe denizens
of the sixth and fifth heavens, (2) and
(3), should be transposed. The lowest
heaven is not peopled by any spirits.
In Origen de Prine. i. 5. 3, ib. i. 6.
2, I. pp. 66, 70 (comp. i. 8. 1, 2b. p.74),
we have five classes, which are given
in an ascending scale in this order;
(1) angels (sancti angeli, raéis dyye-
Auxn); (2) princedoms (principatus,
Svvapyis dpyexyn, apxai); (3) powers (po-
testates, é£ovaia); (4) thrones (thront
vel sedes, Opdvan); (5) dominations
(dominationes, xvuptornres); though
elsewhere, in Joann. i. § 34, IV. p- 34,
he seems to have a somewhat differ-
ent classification in view. In Ephrem
Syrus Op. Syr. I. p. 270 (where the
translation of Benedetti is altogether
faulty and misleading) the ranks are
these: (1) Oeot, Apdvot, kupiorntes ; (2)
dpxayyero.,dpyxal, €Eovaia; (3) ayyedor,
duvdpets, yepouBip, cepadip; these three
great divisions being represented by
the xAlapyor, the éxardyrapxor, and the
mevrnkovrapxot respectively in Deut. i.
15, on which passage he is comment-
ing. The general agreement between
these will be seen at once. This
grouping also seems to underlie the
conception of Basil of Seleucia Orat.
39 (p. 207), who mentions them in this
order; Opovot, Kupornres, dpxai, &&-
ovoiat, Suvdyes, yxepouvBip, cepaip.
On the other hand the arrangement of
the pseudo-Dionysius, who so largely
influenced subsequent speculations,
is quite different and probably later
(Dion. Areop. Op. IL. p. 75, ed. Cord.);
(1) Opdvor, xepouBip, cepapip; (2) é€ov-
ciat, kuptorntes, Suvdpers; (3) dyyedor,
dpxayysAor, dpxai. But the earlier
lists for the most part seem to
suggest as their common foundation a
classification in which @povot, xvptdrn-
res, belonged to the highest order, and
dpxai, éfovoiae to the next below
Thus it would appear that the Apo-
stle takes as an illustration the titles

154

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[I. 16

a Uy 5 \ , Oe p) ~ \ > ? \ af
ECOUTIAaL Cl TOY ae t aduTouvu Kal ElS AUTOV EKTIOTAL’

assigned to the two highest grades in
a system of the celestial hierarchy
which he found current, and which
probably was adopted by these Gnos-
tic Judaizers. See also the note on
11 ees

O@pdvot] In all systems alike these
‘thrones’ belong to the highest grade
of angelic beings, whose place is in
the immediate presence of God. The
meaning of the name however is
doubtful: (1) It may signify the occw-
pants of thrones which surround the
throne of God; as in the imagery of
Rev. iv. 4 kiKdoGev rod Opovov Opovor
cixoot Téaoapes (comp. Xi. 16, xx. 4).
The imagery is there taken from the
court of an earthly king: see Jer. lii.
32. This is the interpretation givea
by Origen de Prine. i. 5.3 (p. 66), i.
6. 2 (p. 70) ‘judicandi vel regendi...
habentes officium.’ Or (2) They were
so called, as supporting or forming
the throne of God ; just as the chariot-
seat of the Almighty is represented
as resting on the cherubim in Hzek.
B96; 31k.03, S. - 8G y xis 2, Par xvii: £0,
1 Chron. xxviii. 18. So apparently
Clem. Alex. Proph. Ecl. 57 (p. 1003)
Opsvor ay eiev...d1a TS avanavecOar ev
avrois tov Scov. From this same
imagery of the prophet the later mys-
ticism of the Kabbala derived its
name ‘wheels,’ which it gave to one
of its ten orders of Sephiroth. Adopt-
ing this interpretation, several fathers
identify the ‘thrones’ with the che-
rubim: eg. Greg. Nyss. c. Hunom.
i (IL. p. 349 sq.), Chrysost. de Incompr.
Nat. iii. 5 (1. p. 467), Theodoret (ad
doc.), August. in Psalm. xcviii. § 3
(iv. p. 1061). This explanation was
adopted also by the pseudo-Dionysius
de Cel. Hier. 7 (1. p. 80), without how-
ever identifying them with the cheru-
bim ; and through his writings it came
to be generally adopted. ‘The former
interpretation however is more pro-
bable; for (1) The highly symbolical
character of the latter accords better

with a later stage of mystic speculation,
like the Kabbala; and (2) It seems
best to treat 6pdvo. as belonging to the
same category with kupidrnres, dpxai,
efovciat, which are concrete words
borrowed from different grades of
human rank and power. As implying
regal dignity, @povor naturally stands
at the head of the list.

kuptorntes | ‘dominations, as Kiphes.
i. 21. These appear to have been re-
garded as belonging to the first grade,
and standing next in dignity to the
@povot. This indeed would be sug-
gested by their name.

apxai, e€ovoiat} as Hphes. i. 21.
These two words occur very frequently
together. In some places they refer
to human dignities, as Luke xii. 11,
Tit. iii, 1 (comp. Luke xx. 20); in
others to a spiritual hierarchy. And
here again there are two different
uses : sometimes they designate good
angels, e.g. below ii. 10, Ephes. iii. 10;
sometimes evil spirits, eg. ii, 15,
Ephes. vi. 12: while in one passage at
least (1 Cor. xv. 24) both may be in-
cluded. In Rom. viii. 38 we have ap-
xat without éfovaia (except as av. 1.),
and in 1 Pet. iii. 22 é€ovaiae without
dpxai, in connexion with the angelic
orders.

60 avrov «7.A.| ‘As all creation
passed out from Him, so does it all con-
verge again towards Him.’ For the
combination of prepositions see Rom.
xi. 36 €& avrow Kal Ov avrov kai eis av-
rov ranavra. Heisnot only the a but
also the w, not only the apy7 but also
the réAos of creation, not only the first
but also the last in the history of
the Universe: Rev. xxii. 13. For
this double relation of Christ to the
Universe, as both the initial and the
final cause, see Heb. ii. 10 & dv ra
mavra Kat &¢ ov Ta mavra, Where 80 ov
is nearly equivalent to eis avrov of the

text.
In the Judaic philosophy of Alex-
andria the preposition é:a with the

et ee

TSS

be Din! os \ > rar g
' Ol QUTOU Kal €l$ avToV.

I..17]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

155

> » mek , \ \ , 2 > can
Tkal avTOS €oTw TPO TWAVTWV, KaL TA TWAVTA EV AUTW

genitive was commonly used to de-
scribe the function of the Logos in
the creation and government of the
world; e.g. de Cherub. 35 (I. p. 162)
where Philo, enumerating the causes
which combine in the work of Crea-
tion, describes God as id’ od, matter
as é& od, and the Word as & ov;
comp. de Mon. ii. 5 (1. p. 225) Aoyos...
dv ov oipras 6 Kdopos eOnmoupyeiro.
The Christian Apostles accepted this
use of dca to describe the mediatorial
function of the Word in creation ; e.g.
John i. 3 wavra 80 avrod éyeveto, K.1.d.,
ab. ver. 10 6 Koopos 8 avtod éyévero,
Heb. i. 2 Sv ov kat émoinoev rods
aidvas. This mediatorial function
however has entirely changed its
character. To the Alexandrian Jew it
was the work of a passive tool or instru-
ment (de Cherub. lc. dv ov, TO é€pya-
Aetov, dpyavoy...d¢ ov); but to the
Christian Apostle it represented a
cooperating agent. Hence the Alex-
andrian Jew frequently and consist-
ently used the simple instrumental
dative 6 to describe the relation of
the Word to the Creator, e.g. Quod
Deus immut. 12 (1. p. 281) ¢ kal rov
koopoy eipyatero, Leg. All. i. 9 (1
P- 47) TO wepipaverrar@ Kai tyavye-
oTaT@ éavTov Ady pratt 6 Ocds. dy-
orepa rrovei, comp: 70. iii. 31 (I. p. 106)
6 oyos...6 Kkabamep dpydve mpooyxpn-
capevos. This mode of speaking is not
found in the New Testament.

eis avrov| ‘unto Him. As of the
Father it is said elsewhere, 1 Cor. viii.
6 €€ od ta mavra Kal nyeis eis adrdv,
so here of the Son we read ra wdvra
All things
must find their meeting-point, their re-
conciliation, at length in Him from
whom they tuok their rise—in the
Word as the mediatorial agent, and
through the Word in the Father as
the primary source. The Word is
the final cause as well as the creative
agent of the Universe. This ultimate
goal of the present dispensation in

time is similarly stated in several pas-
sages. Sometimes it is represented
as the birth-throe and deliverance of
all creation through Christ; as Rom.
Vili. 19 sq. avT) 4 KTiots éhevOepw@by-
vera, racay Kricts...cvvadive. Some-
times it is the absolute and final sub-
jection of universal nature to Him;
as 1 Cor. xv. 28 drav vmorayn aire
7a wavra. Sometimes it is the recon-
ciliation of all things through Him; as
below, ver. 20 5¢ avrod droxaraddagéar
ta wavra. Sometimes it is the reca-
pitulation, the gathering up in one
head, of the Universe in Him; as
Ephes. i. 10 dvaxeharawoacba ta
mavra €v T@ Xptors. The image in-
volved in this last passage best illus-
trates the particular expression in the
text eis avrov éxriotar; but all alike
enunciate the same truth in different
terms. The Kternal Word is the goal
of the Universe, as He was the starting-
point. It must end in unity, as it
proceeded from unity: and the centre
of this unity is Christ. This expres-
sion has no parallel, and could hare
none, in the Alexandrian phraseology
and doctrine.

17. Kat avros x.r.r.|] ‘and HE IS
before ali things’: comp. Joh. viii. 58
mpw ABpaap yeverOar, eyo eipi (and
perhaps also vili. 24, 28, xiii. 19). The
imperfect jv might have sufficed
(comp. Joh. i. 1), but the present gor
declares that this pre-existence is
absolute existence. The aytoc ecTIN
here corresponds exactly to the erw
eim! in St John, and this again is illus-
trated by Exod. iii.14. The verb there-
fore is not an enclitic, but should be ac-
centuated gorw. See Basilady. Hunom.
iv (I. p. 294) 6 droctoXos eiraév, Tlavra
dv avrod Kal eis avtov Exriorat, Operrev
eimeiv, Kal avros éyéveto, mpo mavTer,
eimav dé, Kai avros €ore mpd wavrav,
éSerEe Tov pev del dvra thy Sé KTiow
yevouerny. The avrds is as necessary
for the completeness of the meaning,

156 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

r 18 \
OUVEOTHKEDV. Kal

ey Z
QUTOS
as the éorwv. The one emphasizes the
personality, as the other declares the
pre-existence. For this emphatic av-
Tos see again ver. 18; comp. Ephes.
li, 14, lv. 10, 11, I Joh. ii, 2, and esp.
Rey. xix. 15 kal avros rrowavel...kat
avros maret. The other interpretation
which explains zpd rayrav of superi-
ority in rank, and not of priority in
time, is untenable for several reasons.
(1) This would most naturally be ex-
pressed otherwise in Biblical language,
as ent mavrov (e.g. Rom. ix. 5, Eph. iv.
6), or vmép marta (Eph. i. 22), or vmep-
avo tavrov (Eph. i. 21, iv. 10). (2)
The key to the interpretation is given
by the analogous words in the con-
text, esp. mpwrdroxos, VY. 15, 18. (3)

Nothing short of this declaration of,

absolute pre-existence would be ade-
quate to introduce the statement
which follows, kal ra mavta ev aito
CUVETTNKEDY.

apo mavrav] ‘before all things.” In
the Latin it was translated ‘ ante
omnes,’ i.e. thronos, dominationes, etc. ;
and so Tertullian adv. Mare. v. 19
‘Quomodo enim ante omnes, si non
ante omnia? Quomodo ante omnia,
si non primogeuitus conditionis ?’? But
the neuter ra mavra, standing in the
context before and after, requires the
neuter here also.

avvertnkev| ‘hold together, cohere.’
He is the principle of cohesion in the
universe. He impresses upon creation
that unity and solidarity which makes
it a cosmos instead of a chaos. Thus
(to take one instance) the action of
gravitation, which keepsin their places
things fixed and regulates the mo-
tions of things moving, is an expres-
sion of His mind. Similarly in Heb.
i. 3 Christ the Logos is described as
dépwov ra marta (sustaining the Uni-
verse) TO pnuate tis Suvduews avrod.
Here again the Christian Apostles
accept the language of Alexandrian
Judaism, which describes the Logos
as the deopuos of the Universe; e.g.

[I. 18
€oTw 1) Kepady Tov ow-
Philo de Profug. 20 (1. p. 562) 6 re

y4p Tod dvtos Aoyos Seapos dv ray
aTavT@V...Kal TUE XEL TA Mepy TavTa
kai obiyyet kai K@Aver adra Siadver Oat
kat Stapracba, de Plant. 2 (1. p. 331)
Tvvaywoyv Ta pepy TayTa kal opiyyor’
Seapov yap avrov Gppykrov Tov mavros
0 yevynoas emotes ratnp, Quis rer. div.
her. 38 (I. p. 507) Ady@ odiyyerat Oeig*
KoAAa yap €ote kat Seapos ovTos Ta
TavTa THs ovolas exmemAnpokws: and
for the word itself see Quis rer. div.
her. 12 (1. p. 481) cuvéornke kal fo-
mupeitat mpovoia Geod, Clem. Rom. 27
€v hoy@ THs peyadwovrns avTov cuve-
oTjaato ta mavra. In the same con-
nexion ovyxeirat is used, Hcclus. xliii.
26. The indices to Plato and Aristotle
amply illustrate this use of cuvéornkev.
This mode of expression was common
with the Stoics also.

18. ‘And not only does He hold
this position of absolute priority and
sovereignty over the Universe—the
natural creation. He stands also in
the same relation to the Church—
the new spiritual creation. He is its
head, and itis His body. This is His
prerogative, because He is the source
and the beginning of its life, being
the First-born from the dead. Thus
in all things—in the spiritual order as
in the natural—in the Church as in
the World—He is found to have the
pre-eminence.’

The elevating influence of this
teaching on the choicest spirits of the
subapostolic age will be seen from
a noble passage in the noblest of
early Christian writings, Epist. ad
Diogn. § 7 rov Aeyov Tov ayov...av-
Opadzots evidpuce...ov, kabamep av tis
eixacevev, dvOperots UmNpeTnY TWA TEL-
Was dyyedov ) apxovra 7H Twa Tov
dverdvtwy ra émiyeia 7 Twa TOV TeTLo-
Teupévav Tas ev ovpavots Siouknoers, GAN’
avrév tov texvitnv Kal Snwvoupyov Tay
Cdov...@ marta Siarérakrat Kai Siopic-
Tat Kal vroréraktat, ovpavol Kal Ta ev

a Ss ee

I. 18]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

157

~ 4 e/ / /
MaTosS, TyS EKKANoLas' Os EoTW aAPXN, TPWTOTOKOS

Tois ovpavois, yj Kal Ta Ev TH YQ K.T.A.
See the whole context.

kat avtos| ‘and He, repeated from
the preceding verse, to emphasize the
identity of the Person who unites in
Himself these prerogatives: see on
ver. 17, and comp. ver. 18 avros, ver.
19 & avrov. The Creator of the
World is also the Head of the Church.
There is no blind ignorance, no im-
perfect sympathy, no latent conflict, in
the relation of the demiurgic power
to the Gospel dispensation, as the
heretical teachers were disposed con-
sciously or unconsciously to assume
(see above, p. IOI sq., p. 110 sq.), but
an absolute unity of origin.

7 Kepadn| ‘the head, the inspiring,
ruling, guiding, combining, sustaining
power, the mainspring of its activity,
the centre of its unity, and the seat
of its life. In his earlier epistles the
relations of the Church to Christ are
described under the same image (I
Cor. xii. 12—27; comp. vi. 15, X. 17,
Rom. xii. 4 8q.); but the Apostle
there takes as his starting-point the
various functions of the members, and
not, as in these later epistles, the
originating and controling power of
the Head. Comp. i. 24, ii. 19, Eph.
i. 22 8q., ii. 16, iv. 4, 12, 15 8q., V. 23, 30.

ths éxkAnoias| in apposition with
Tov o@paros: Comp. i. 24. Tod ow@paros
avrod, 6 éorw 9 éxxAnoia, Eph. i. 23.

dpxn| ‘the origin, the beginning,
The term is here applied to the In-
carnate Christ in relation to the
Church, because it is applicable to
the Eternal Word in relation to the
Universe, Rev. iii. 14 7 apy? ris xri-
aews Tov Geov. The parallelism of the
two relations is kept in view through-
out. The word apyyn here involves
two ideas: (1) Priority in time; Christ
was the first-fruits of the dead, arapy7
(4 Cor. xv. 20, 23): (2) Originating
power; Christ was also the source of
life, Acts iii. 14 0 apynyos ris Cats;
comp. Acts v. 31, Heb. ii. 10. He is

not merely the principium princi-
piatum but the principium princi-
pians (see Trench L£pisiles to the
Seven Churches p. 1838q.). He rose
first from the dead, that others might
rise through Him.

The word dpxy, like mpdros (see
the note on Phil. i. 5), being absolute
in itself, does not require the definite
article. Indeed the article is most
commonly omitted where dpx7 occurs
as a predicate, as will appear from
several examples to be gathered from
the extracts in Plut. Mor. p. 875 sq.,
Stob. Zcl. Phys. i. 10. 128q. Comp.also
Aristot. Met. x. 7, p. 1064, ro Oeiov...
dy ein mpodtn kal kuptwrarn apxn, Onatas
in Stob. cl. Phys. i. 2. 39 adtos yap
[eds] dpya kat mparov, Tatian. ad
Grec. 4 Geds...ndvos dvapyos @v Kal
avros Umapxwv tav dkwv dpxn, Clem.
Alex. Strom. iv. 25, p. 638, 6 eds Se
advapxos, dpxi) TOV SAwv Tavredns, Gpxis
moutikos, Method. de Creat. 3 (p. 100,
ed. Jahn) maons dpetijs apxnv Kat my-
yiv ...Nyh Tov Oedv, pseudo-Dionys.
de Div. Nom. v.§ 6 apxy yap éort tay
dvrwy, § 10 mavrw@v ovv apx? Kat Tedev-
Tl) TOY OvT@Y O TpOwv.

The text is read with the definite
article, 7 dpyy, in one or two excel-
lent authorities at least; but the ob-
vious motive which would lead a
scribe to aim at greater distinctness
renders the reading suspicious.

mpwtoroxos| Comp. Rev. i. 5 6 mpo-
TOTOKOS TOY vexp@v Kal 6 Gpyov Ta
Bacwéov tis ys. His resurrection
from the dead is His title to the
headship of the Church; for ‘the
power of His resurrection’ (Phil. iii.
10) is the life of the Church. Such
passages as Gen. xlix. 3, Deut. xxi. 17,
where the mpeardroxos is called apxy
réxvevy and superior privileges are
claimed for him as such, must neces-
sarily be only very faint and partial
illustrations of the connexion between
dpxy and mpardroxos here, where the
subject-matter and the whole context

158 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[T. 19

C ~~ e/ / ~ \
Ek TWV VEKNWY, Iva YEYNTAaL ev TAT aAVTOS TPwWTEVwWY

19 °/ 9 a lanl 100 “ \ Ls ~
OTL. ‘eV avuTw EVOOKYNTEVY TaV TO TANPWULa KATOLKY-

point toa fuller meaning of the words.
The words mpororokos ék tov vexpav
here correspond to mpwtoroxos macys
xrigews Ver. 15,80 that the parallelism
between Christ’s relations to the Uni-
verse and to the Church is thus em-
phasized.

iva yévnra «t.A.]| As He ?zs first
with respect to the Universe, so it
was ordained that He should become
first with respect to the Church as
well. The yévnrace here answers in a
manner to the éorey of ver.17. Thus
éorw and yévnrac are contrasted as
the absolute being and the _histo-
rical manifestation. The relation be-
tween Christ’s headship of the Uni-

verse by virtue of His Eternal God-

head and His headship of the Church
by virtue of His Incarnation and
Passion and Resurrection is some-
what similarly represented in Phil. ii,
6 sq. ev poppy Ceov Umdpxav.. poppy
SovAov AaBov.. -YEVOpEVOS Um Koos BEXpL
Oavarov...du0 Kal 6 eds avrov vrepv-
Wooev k.t.d.

ev raow | ‘in all things, not in the
Universe only but in the Church
also. Kat yap, writes Theodoret, os
Geds, po mavrwy éoTl Kal UY TO TraTpl
€oTl, Kat os GvOpwmos, mpwToToKos €k
Tov veKpov Kal TOU adpatos Kepadn.
Thus év racw is neuter and not mas-
culine, as it is sometimes taken. Hi-
ther construction is grammatically
correct, but the context points to the
former interpretation here; and this
is the common use of év racw, e.g.
Heit, Bph, 1-23, Pal tv. 72s. or
the neuter compare Plut. Jor. p. 9
omevdovres Tovs mraidas €v Tact TAXLOV
mperevoa. On the other hand in
[Demosth.] Amat. p. 1416 xpaticroy
eivat TO mpwtevew ev aract the context
shows that amaou is masculine.

avtos| ‘He Himself’; see the note
on kal avros above.

19, 20. ‘And this absolute supre-

2

macy is His, because it was the
Father’s good pleasure that in Him
all the plenitude of Deity should have
its home; because He willed through
Him to reconcile the Universe once
more to Himself. It was God’s pur-
pose to effect peace and harmony
through the blood of Christ’s cross,
and so to restore all things, whatso-
ever and wheresoever they be, whe-
ther on the earth or in the heavens,’
19. d7t ev atra x.r.A.| The eternal
indwelling of the Godhead explains
the headship of the Church, not less
than the headship of the Universe.
The resurrection of Christ, whereby
He became the dpyx7 of the Church,
was the result of and the testimony to
His deity; Rom. i. 4 rod opicbévros
viod Gcod...e€ dvaoragews vexpav.
evdoxnoev| Sc. 6 Geds, the nomina-
tive being understood; see Winer
§ lviii. p. 655 sq., § Ixiv. p. 735 8q.;
comp. James i. 12 (the right reading),
iv. 6. Here the omission is the more
easy, because evdoxia, evdoxeir ete. (like
Oédnya), are used absolutely of God’s
good purpose, e.g. Luke ii. 14 éy dp-
Gpw@mos evOokias (or evdoria), Phil. ii.
13 Umép tis evdoxias, Clem. Rom. § 4o
mwayTa Ta yivopeva év evdoxnuer; see the
note on Clem. Rom. § 2. For the ex-
pression generally comp. 2 Mace. xiv.
35 ov, Kupte, evddxnoas vaoy tis ons
KaTacknvocews ev npiv yevéerba. The
alternative is to consider way rd mAn-
poua personified as the nominative ;
but it is difficult to conceive St Paul
so speaking, more especially as with
evdoxnoey personification would sug-
gest personality. The mAnpopa in-
deed is personified in Clem. Alex.
Hac. Theod. 43 (p. 979) cuvawéoavros
kal Tov wAnpoparos, and in Iren. i. 2.
6 Bovdy pia kal yvoun TO Tay TAnpOpA
TOY ai@vey K.T.r., 1. 12. 4 wav TO TAN-
popa nvdoxynoev [Ov avrod dofaca riv
marépa|; but the phraseology of the

mae

—e ae = ——

I. 20]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

159

~ cy , \ , >
ca, “Kal Ov avTov droxatad\Nafat Ta TayvTa ets

Valentinians, to which these passages
refer, cannot be taken as an indica-
tion of St Paul’s usage, since their view
of the wAjpopa was wholly different.
A third interpretation is found in
Tertullian adv. Mare. v. 19, who trans-
lates év avrg in semetipso, taking o
Xpiords as the nominative to evddxn-
cev: and this construction is followed
by some modern critics. But, though
grammatically possible, it confuses
the theology of the passage hope-
lessly.

To tAnpopal ‘the plenitude, a re-
cognised technical term in theology,
denoting the totulity of the Divine
powers and attributes; comp. ii. 9.
See the detached note on mAyjpopa.
On the relation of this statement to
the speculations of the false teach-
ers at Colossee see the introduction,
pp. 102,112. Another interpretation,
which explains ro mAjpopa as refer-
ring to the Church (comp. Ephes. i.
22), though adopted by several fathers,
is unsuited to the context and has
nothing to recommend it.

karouxnoat| ‘should have its per-
manent abode. The word occurs again
in the same connexion, ii. 9. The
false teachers probably, like their
later counterparts, maintained only a
partial and transient connexion of the
mAnpopa with the Lord. Hence St
Paul declares in these two passages
that it is not a mapoxia but a caro-
xia. The two words xaroixeiv, mapou-
xeiy, occur in the Lxx as the common
renderings of 2” and A respect-
ively, and are distinguished as the
permanent and the transitory ; e.g.
Gen. xxxvi. 44 (xxxvil. 1) kar@xeu dé
laxoB év Th yj ov map@xnoey 6 maTHp
avrov é€v yn Xavady (comp. Hos. x. 5),
Philo Sacer. Ab. e¢ Ca. 10 (1. p. 170 M) o
rois éyxukAiots povois emavexeov mapolKket
copia, ov xaroxei, Greg. Naz. Orat.
xiv (I p. 271 ed. Caillau) ris tiv xdro
oKnVyY Kal THY advo moAw; Tis mapot-
kiav kat katoixiay; comp. Orat. vii

(1. p. 200). See also the notes on
Ephes. ii. 19, and on Clem. Rom. 1.

20. The false teachers aimed at
effecting a partial reconciliation be-
tween God and man through the in-
terposition of angelic mediators. The
Apostle speaks of an absolute and
complete reconciliation of universal
nature to God, effected through the
mediation of the Incarnate Word.
Their mediators were ineffective, be-
cause they were neither human nor
divine. The true mediator must be
both human and divine. It was
necessary that in Him all the pleni-
tude of the Godhead should dwell.
It was necessary also that He should
be born into the world and should
suffer as a man.

8? avrov] i.e. rod Xpiorod, as ap-
pears from the preceding € avrg,
and the following 6a rod aiparos
Tod oravpod avtov, d¢ avtod. This
expression 6: avrod has been already
applied to the Preincarnate Word in
relation to the Universe (ver. 16); it
is now used of the Incarnate Word in
relation to the Church.

dmokatadAa€a] sc. evdoxnoev 6 Geds.
The personal pronoun avroy, instead
of the reflexive éavrdy, is no real ob-
stacle to this way of connecting the
words (see the next note). The al-
ternative would be to take ro mAy-
popa as governing droxara\\a€a, but
this mode of expression is harsh and
improbable.

The same double compound dzoxar-
a\Adooew is used below, ver. 21 and
Ephes. ii. 16, in place of the usual xar-
atkaooev. It may be compared
with aroxaracraors, Actsiii.21. Ter-.
tullian, arguing against the dualism
of Marcion who maintained an anta-
gonism between the demiurge and the
Christ, lays stress on the compound,
adv. Marc. v. 19 ‘conciliart extraneo
possent, reconciliart vero non alii
quam suo.” The word dmoxara\\dc-
cew corresponds to emnddorpiouevous

160 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. {i238

, 3 , tee | al e ~ =
QUTOV, ELONVOTOLNO AS Ola TOU aipaTos TOU OT avpou

oe = sf \ ~ ~ 9 ~

avTou, ov avtov eite Ta éml THs yis elTe Ta ev TOTS
~ \ e ~ \ oS

oupavots, “kat UMas MOTE OVTAaS amTnANOTPLWMEVOUS Kal

here and in Ephes. ii. 16, implying a
restitution to a state from which they
had fallen, or which was potentially
theirs, or for which they were destined.
Similarly St Augustine on Gal. iv. 5
remarks that the word used of the
viobecia is not accipere (AapBaveww)
but recipere (dmodapBavew). See the
note there.

ra wavta| The whole universe of
things, material as well as spiritual,
shall be restored to harmony with
God. How far this restoration of
universal nature may be subjective, as
involved in the changed perceptions
of man thus brought into harmony
with God, and how far it may have an
objective and independent existence,
it were vain to speculate.

eis avrov| ‘to Him, i.e. ‘to Him-
self’? The reconciliation is always
represented as made to the Father.
The reconciler is sometimes the Fa-
ther Himself (2 Cor. v. 18, 19 &€k row
@cod tov Katuddagavros yas éavT@
dia Xpiorov...Ocds jv év Xprore xoopov
kata\Adoowy é€avT), sometimes the
Son (Ephes. ii. 16: comp. Rom. v.
10, 11). Hxcellent reasons are given
(Bleek Hebr. 11. p. 69, A. Buttmann
Gramm. p. 97) for supposing that the
reflexive pronoun éavrov etc. is never
contracted into avrod etc. in the
Greek Testament. But at the same
time it is quite clear that the oblique
cases of the personal pronoun avrés are
there used very widely, and in cases
where we should commonly find the
reflexive pronoun in classical authors :
e.g. Ephes. i. 4, 5 e&eAe£aro myas...
eivat Mas dyious kal dudpous KaTEV@rTLOV
avTov...mpoopioas nuas eis viobeciav
dia "Ingot Xpiorod eis avrov. See
also the instances given in A. Butt-
mann p. 98. It would seem indeed
that avrod etc. may be used for éav-

tou etc. in almost every connexion,
except where it is the direct object
of the verb.

eipnvorrornoas| The word occurs in
the txx, Proy. x. 10, and in Hermes
in Stob. Acl. Phys. xli. 45. The sub-
stantive eipnvorrois (see Matt. v. 9)
is found several times in classical
writers.

5’ avrov| The external authority
for and against these words is nearly
evenly balanced: but there would
obviously be a tendency to reject
them as superfluous. They are a re-
sumption of the previous & avrov.
For other examples see ii. 13 vpas,
Rom. viii. 23 cai avroi, Gal. ii. 15, 16
nets, Ephes. i. 13 €v @ kai, iii. 1, 14
Tovtov xdapw, where words are simi-
larly repeated for the sake of emphasis
or distinctness. In 2 Cor. xii. 7 there
is a repetition of iva py vmepaipwpat,
where again it is omitted in several
excellent authorities.

21—23. ‘And ye too—ye Gentiles—
are included in the terms of this
peace. In times past ye had estranged
yourselves from God. Your hearts
were hostile to Him, while ye lived on
in your evil deeds. But now, in
Christ’s body, in Christ’s flesh which
died on the Cross for your atonement,
ye are reconciled to Him again. He
will present you a living sacrifice, an
acceptable offering unto Himself, free
from blemish and free even from
censure, that ye may stand the pierc-
ing glance of Him whose scrutiny
no defect can escape. But this
can only be, if ye remain true to
your old allegiance, if ye hold fast
(as I trust ye are holding fast) by the
teaching of Epaphras, if the edifice of
your faith is built on solid foundations
and not reared carelessly on the sands,
if ye suffer not yourselves to be

I. 22]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

161

A“ ~ ” a a
€xOpous TH Savoia év Tots Epyous Tots wovnpots, vuvi SE
i 2 a“ / a \ a
admokaTnA\Aaynte @év TH TWMATL TIS TapKos avTOD Oia

at. vuvt dé droxarynddaker.

shifted or shaken but rest firmly on
the hope which ye have found in the
Gospel—the one universal unchange-
able Gospel, which was proclaimed to
every creature under heaven, of which
I Paul, unworthy as I am, was called
to be a minister.’

21. dmnAdorpiwpévous| ‘estranged,’
not dAdorpiovs, ‘strangers’; comp.
Ephes. ii. 12, iv. 18. See the note on
dmoxarad\aéat, ver. 20.

€xOpovs] ‘hostile to God, as the
consequence of dmnddorpimpévous, not
‘hateful to God,’ as it is taken by
some. The active rather than the
passive sense of éyOpovs is required
by the context, which (as commonly in
the New Testament) speaks of the
sinner as reconciled to God, not of
God as reconciled to the sinner: comp.
Rom. v. 10 ei yap €yOpol dvres xarna-
Aaynuev TO OcG «7A. It is the mind
of man, not the mind of God, which
must undergo a change, that a re-
union may be effected.

th Svavoial ‘in your mind, intent.’
For the dative of the part affected
compare Ephes. iv. 18 éoxoropéevor rj
dtavoia, Luke i. 51 vmepnpavous Sdiavoia
kapdias avrav. So kxapdia, xapdiats,
Matt. v. 8, xi. 29, Acts vii. 51, 2 Cor.
ix. 7, I Thess. ii. 17; dpeoiv, 1 Cor.
xiv. 20.

év trois épyos x.7.A.] ‘in the midst
of, in the performance of your wicked
works’ ; the same use of the preposi-
tion as e.g. ii. 23, iv. 2.

vuvi] Here, as frequently, voy
(vvvi) admits an aorist, because it de-
notes not ‘at the present moment,
but ‘in the present dispensation, the
present order of things’: comp. e.g.
ver. 26, Rom. v. 11, vii. 6, xi. 30, 31,
xvi. 26, Ephes. ii. 13, iii. 5, 2 Tim. i.
10, I Pet. i. 10, ii. 10, 25. In all
these passages there is a direct con-
trast between the old dispensation

COL.

and the new, more especially as af-
fecting the relation of the Gentiles to
God. The aorist is found also in
Classical writers, where a similar con-
trast is involved; e.g. Plato Symp.
193 A mpo Tov, Womep Aéyo, Ev Tuer"
yuri dé dia ryv adcxiav Su@xioOnpev vrs
tov Oeod, Iszeus de Cleon. her. 20 rére
pev...vuvi dé...€Bovr7n On. .
dmoxatn\Aaynre| The reasons for
preferring this reading, though the
direct authority for it is so slight, are
given in the detached note on the
various readings. But, whether dazo-
katnAAaynre OY croxatn\Aakev be pre-
ferred, the construction requires ex-
planation. If dmoxarn\d\agev be a-
dopted, it is perhaps best to treat
de as introducing the apodosis, the
foregoing participial clause serving as
the protasis : ‘ And you, though yewere :
once estranged... yet now hath he
reconciled, in which case the first
vpas will be governed directly by dzo-
katnd\Aagev; see Winer Gramm. § liii.
p. 553. If this construction be adopted,
mapaotioa vpas will describe the re-
sult of dmoxarn\dakev, ‘so as to pre-
sent you’; but o Geds will still be the
nominative to dmoxarn\Aagev as in
2 Cor. v. 19. If on the other hand

droxatnAAdynte be taken, it is best to

regard vuvi dé dmoxarn\Adynre as a
direct indicative clause substituted
for the more regular participial form
vuvi 6€ dmoxaraddayevras for the sake
of greater emphasis: see the note on
ver. 26 ro droxexpuppéevoyv...vov dé épa-
vepoOn. In this case mapacrica will
be governed directly by evdoxncer,

.and will itself govern tpuas more dévras

x.7.r., the second vyas being a repe-
tition of the first; ‘And you who
once were estranged...but now ye have
been reconciled...to present you, I
say, holy and without blemish.’ For
the repetition of vas, which was

II

162

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS,

cl23

Cn fe Oo ~ <<: ~ , \ VA
tou Gavatou [ avrou |, TapacTioa Vas dylous Kal duw-

y , vax af cS /
floUS Kal aVEYKANTOUS KATEVWILOY a’TOU, "Ei ye E7rpeE-

an / / \ ~ \ \
vere TH TioTEr TEDEUEALWMEVOL Kat Edpaior Kal My META-
‘

needed to disentangle the construc-
tion, see the note on dv avrov ver.
20.

22. rns capkds avrov | It has been sup-
posed that St Paul added these words,
which are evidently emphatic, with a
polemical aim either; (1) To combat
docetism. Of this form of error how-
ever there is no direct evidence till a
somewhat later date: or (2) To com-
bat a false spiritualism which took
offence at the doctrine of an atoning
sacrifice. But for this purpose they
would not have been adequate, because
not explicitenough. Itseems simpler
therefore to suppose that they were
added for the sake of greater clear-
ness, to distinguish the natural body
of Christ intended here from the
mystical body mentioned just above,
ver. 18, Similarly in Ephes. ii. 14
év Ti capki avrov is used rather than
€vy T@ oopate avtod, because odpa
occurs in the context (ver. 16) of
Christ’s mystical body. The same
expression, To capa THs oapxkos, Which
we have here, occurs also below, ii.
11, but with a different emphasis and
meaning. There the emphasis is on
ro odpa, the contrast lying between
the whole body and a single member
(see the note); whereas here ts cap-
xos is the emphatic part of the ex-
pression, the antithesis being between
the material and the spiritual. Com-
pare also Hcclus. xxiii. 16 dvépwmos
Topvos €v TWpaTL GapKds avToU.

Marcion omitted tis capkos as in-
consistent with his views, and ex-
plained ev t@ copart to mean the
Church. Hence the comment of
Tertullian adv. Mare. v. 19, ‘utique
in eo corpore, in quo mori potuit per
carnem, mortuus est, non per eccle-
siam sed propter ecclesiam, corpus
commutando pro corpore, carnale pro
spiritali.’

mapaotnoa| If the construction
which I have adopted be correct, this
is said of God Himself, as in 2 Cor.
iv. 14 6 éyelpas tov Kupiov "Inoovy Kal
nas ovv "Inoov éyepet kal mapaotn-
oetovy vpiv. This construction seems
in all respects preferable to connect-
ing wapaorjoa directly with dmoxa-
Tn\Aaynre and interpreting the words,
‘ Ye have been reconciled so that ye
should present yourselves (upas)...be-
Jore Him, This latter interpretation
leaves the kal vpas more ovras k.t.d.
without a government, and it gives to
the second wyas a reflexive sense (as
if Uuas avrovds or é€avrovs), which is at
least harsh.

dueopous| ‘without blemish) rather
than ‘without blame, in the language
of the New Testament; see the note
on Ephes.i. 4. It is a sacrificial word,
like réNevos, GAdKAnpos, etc. The verb
mapiotavat also is used of presenting
a sacrifice in Rom. xii. I rapaorjoae
Ta gopata vuov Ovoiay (doav dyiav
kT... Ley. xvi. 7 (v. 1): comp. Luke
Ws: 2:

dveyxAnrous] An advance upon dyo-
povs, ‘in whom not only no blemish
is found, but against whom no charge
is brought’: comp. 1 Tim. vi. 14 dome-
Aov, averiinunrov. The word dvey-
kAnros occurs again in 1 Cor. i. 8,
1Titis io; Lit, 6,7;

katevorov avtou| ‘before Him, i.e.
‘Himself, as in the parallel passage,
Ephes. i. 4; if the construction here
adopted be correct. For this use of
the personal pronoun instead of the
reflexive see the note on eis avroy,
ver. 20. But does kxarevomiov adrov
refer to God’s future judgment or
His present approbation? The latter
seems more probable, both because

the expression certainly has __ this

meaning in the parallel passage, Ephes.
i. 4, and because xarevomtov, evomior,

I. 23]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

163

, , gy od io > / “~ 2 / USM; Vs
KWoupevot TO THS EATOOS TOU EVayYyENLOU OV HKOVTATE,

4 7 7 al \ \ / €
TOU knpux Ge Tos éy TACH KTLGEL TH UO TOY OUpavoY, OU

ond /
éyevounv éyw TatXos dtaxovos.

karévayrt, etc., are commonly so used ;
e.g. Rom. xiv. 22, 1 QOor. i. 29, 2
Cor. ii. 17, iv. 2, vii. 12, xii. 19,
etc. On the other hand, where the
future judgment is intended, a dif-
ferent expression is found, 2 Cor. v.
10 €urpoobev rod Byuatos Tov Xpiorov.
Thus God is here regarded, not as
the judge who tries the accused, but
as the pepookdros who examines the
victims (Polyc. Phil. 4, see the note
on Ephes. i. 4). Compare Heb. iv. 12,
13, for a closely allied metaphor. The
passage in Jude 24, orjoa xarevomiov
tis OoEns avrov dywpovs év ayadNdcet,
though perhaps referring to final ap-
proval, is too different in expression
to influence the interpretation of St
Paul’s language here.

23. et ye] On the force of these par-
ticles see Gal. iii. 4. They express a
pure hypothesis in themselves, but
the indicative mood following converts
the hypothesis into a hope.

emipevere] ‘ye abide by, ye adhere
to,” with a dative; the common con-
struction of émipévew in St Paul: see
the note on Phil. i. 24. In this con-
nexion ty miores is perhaps ‘your
faith,’ rather than ‘the faith’

TeOepehi@pevor K.7.d.] ‘built on a
Joundation and so firm’; not like
the house of the foolish man in the
parable who built ywpis GeweAlov, Luke
vi. 49. For reOeyedtwopévoe comp.
Ephes. iii. 17. The consequence of re-
Ocuedropévor is ESpaiou: Clem. Rom. 33
nS pacev emt rov dodadrfR rod idiov
BovAjparos Oenédrovy, The words
édpaios, édpdto, etc., are not uncom-
monly applied to buildings, e.g. éSpai-
opa I Tim. iii. 15. Comp. Ign. Ephes.
10 vueis Edpaior rH micret.

BH peraxivotpevar] ‘not constantly
shifting, a present tense; the same
idea as éSpaio. expressed from the ne-

gative side, as in 1 Cor. xv. 58 éSpaio

yiverOe, aueraxivnro, Polyc. Phil. 10
‘firmi in fide et immutabiles,’

ths edmidos xr.Ar.] ‘the hope held
out by the Gospel, rod evayyediov be-
ing a subjective genitive, as in Ephes.
i. 18 9 €Amis tijs KAjoews (comp.
iv. 4).

ev magn Ktioes| ‘among every crea-
ture, in fulfilment of the Lord’s last
command, Mark xvi. 15 xnpvéare ro
evayyéAvoy maon TH KTicer. Here how-
ever the definitive article, though
found in the received text, év macy rH
ktioet, must be omitted in accordance
with the best authorities. For the
meanings of maca xriots, maca 7 KTi-
ots, see the note on ver. 15. The ex-
pression raoa xriots must not be limit-
ed to man. The statement is givenin
the broadest form, all creation animate
and inanimate being included, as in
Rev. v. 13 way ktiopa...kal ra év av-
Tois TavTa nkovoa héyovrak.t.A. For
the hyperbole é¢v aon xrioes compare
I Thess. i. 8 €v ravti romm. Todemand
statistical exactness in such a context
would be to require what is never re-
quired in similar cases. The motive
of the Apostle here is at once to em-
phasize the universality of the genuine
Gospel, which has been offered with-
out reserve to all alike, and to appeal
to its publicity, as the credential and
guarantee of its truth: see the notes
on ver. 6 é&y mavti TS kdop@ and on
ver. 28 mavra avOparopr.

ov éyevouny k.t.A.] Why does St
Paul introduce this mention of him-
self so abruptly? His motive can
hardly be the assertion of his Aposto-
lic authority, for it does not appear
that this was questioned; otherwise
he would have declared his commis-
sion in stronger terms. We can only
answer that impressed with the dig-
nity of his office, as involving the offer
of grace to the Gentiles, he cannot

II—2

164.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(28

24.NIg , 3 ~ 61 e \ e la \
uy xalpw é€v Tois ma0yuacw vmEp UEwY, Kal

refrain from magnifying it. At the
same time this mention enables him
to link himself in bonds of closer sym-
pathy with the Colossians, and he
passes on at once to his relations with
them: comp. Ephes. iii. 2—9, 1 Tim.
i. 11 sq., in which latter passage the
introduction of his own name is
equally abrupt.

€yd Iatdos] i.e. ‘weak and unwor-
thy as I am’: comp. Ephes. iii. 8 €yot
TO €AaxloTorep@ TaVTaY ayiwr.

24—27. ‘Now when I see the full
extent of God’s mercy, now when I
ponder over His mighty work of re-
conciliation, I cannot choose but re-
joice in my sufferings. Yes, I Paul
the persecutor, I Paul the feeble and
sinful, am permitted to supplement
I do not shrink from the word—to
supplement the afflictions of Christ.
Despite all that He underwent, He the
Master has left something still for me
the servant to undergo. And so my
flesh is privileged to suffer for His
body—His spiritual body, the Church.
I was appointed a minister of the
Church, a steward in God’s household,
for this very purpose, that I might
administer my office on your behalf,
might dispense to you Gentiles the
stores which His bountiful grace has
provided. Thus I was charged to
preach without reserve the whole
Gospel of God, to proclaim the great
mystery which had remained a secret
through all the ages and all the gene-
rations from the beginning, but which
now in these last times was revealed
to His holy people. For such was His
good pleasure. God willed to make
known to them, in all its inexhaustible
wealth thus displayed through the
call of the Gentiles, the glorious reve-
lation of this mystery-—Christ not the
Saviour of the Jews only, but Christ
dwelling in you, Christ become to you
the hope of glory.’

24. Nov xaipo] A sudden outburst
of thanksgiving, that he, who was less

than the least, who was not worthy to
be called an Apostle, should be allowed
to share and even to supplement the
sufferings of Christ. The relative os,
which is found in some authorities, is
doubtless the repetition of the final
syllable of é.axovos; but its insertion
would be assisted by the anxiety of
scribes to supply a connecting link
between the sentences. The genuine
reading is more characteristic of St
Paul. The abruptness, which dis-
penses with a connecting particle, has
a parallel in 1 Tim. i. 12 yap €yo ro
evduvapaoavti pe XptoT@ «.7.A., where
also the common text inserts a link of
connexion, kat xdpw ¢xo «1.A. Com-
pare also 2 Cor. vii. 9 viv xalpw, ovx
ort k.7.A., Where again there is no con-
necting particle.

The thought underlying viv seems to
be this: ‘If ever I have been disposed
to repine at my lot, if ever I have felt
my cross almost too heavy to bear,
yet now—now, when I contemplate
the lavish wealth of God’s mercy—
now when I see all the glory of bear-
ing a part in this magnificent work—
my sorrow is turned to joy.’

avravarAnpa| ‘LT fill up on my part,
‘Tsupplement. The single compound
dvamAnpovv occurs several times (e.g.
1 Cor. xiv. 16, xvi. 17; Gal. vi. 2); an-
other double compound zpocavamAn-
povy twice (2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9; comp,
Wisd. xix. 4, v. 1.); but dvravamAnpodv
only here in the Luxx or New Testa-
ment. For this verb compare De-
mosth. de Symm. p. 182 rovtav trav
cuppopiav exaorny Svedetv kehevo@ mrevTE
pepn Kata dSddexa avdpas, avtavardn-
povvras mpos TOY EvTOpeTarTov ae
Tovs amopwtarouvs (where rovs dmope-
rarovs should be taken as the subject te
dvravarAnpovrtas), Dion Cass. xliv. 48
iv Ocov...€vedet, TOUTO Ek THS Tapa TOY
GAX@v ovvredelas dyvtravarAnpwby,
Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 12 p. 878 ov-
TOS...THV GwooToALKHY amrovoiay
dvravarAnpot, Apollon. Constr. Or. i. 3

ce ee ae ere ae

I. 24]

EPISTLE TO THH COLOSSIANS. 165.

avravamrAnpw Ta VOTED MATA Tov Orinpewy Tov Xot-

(p. 13 8q.) 3} dvrwvupia avtavardn-
podrra kal thy Oeow Tod ovdparos Kal
Tv tagiv tov pyyaros, Ptol. Math.
Comp. vi. 9 (I. p. 435 ed. Halma) éret
& 7 pév éAdelmecy eroie thw dro-
kardotacw 1 Sé mAeovdfery xara
Twa guvtvxiay hv iows Kal oO “In-
mapxos ayravarAnpovpevnvy mos KaTa-
vevonxet «.T.A. The substantive avra-
varAnp@ots occurs in Diog. Laert. x.
48. So too dvravanrAndew Xen. Hell.
ii. 4. 11, 12 Evverd~avto Gore éuwA7-
gat thy oddy...o§ d€ amo ths pudjs
dvravérAnoay...tiv odov. Compare also
dvraucovv Themist. Paraphr. Arist.
43 B ovdev Kodvet KaTa TavTOVY GAAOOi
mov peraBddrAc.w dépa eis Vdwp kai
dvravcotaba roy ciprayta oyKov, and
avravicwpa Joseph. Ant. xviii. 9. 7:
The meaning of dvrt in this compound
will be plain from the passages quoted.
It signifies that the supply comes/rom
an opposite quarter to the deficiency.
This idea is more or less definitely ex-
pressed in the context of all the pas-
sages, in the words which are spaced.
The force of dvravarAnpody in St Paul
is often explained as denoting simply
that the supply corresponds in ex-
tent to the deficiency. This inter-
pretation practically deprives dyri of
any meaning, for dvamAnpoiy alone
would denote as much. If indeed the
supply had been the subject of the
verb, and the sentence had run ra
madnpara ov avravanrAnpot ta vortn-
pnpara «.7.A., this idea might perhaps
be reached without sacrificing the
sense of dvri; but in such a passage
as this, where one personal agent is
mentioned in connexion with the sup-
ply and another in connexion with
the deficiency, the one forming the
subject and the other being involved
in the object of the verb, the dyri can
only describe the antithesis of these
personal agents. So interpreted, it
is eminently expressive here. The
point of the Apostle’s boast is that
Christ the sinless Master should have
left something for Paul the unworthy

servant to suffer. The right idea has
been seized and is well expressed by
Photius Amphil. 121 (1. p. 709 Migne)
ov yap dm\e@s dnow *AvamdAnpad, add’
*AvravamAnpa; tovréoti, ’Avti Seomré-
tov Kat didackddov 6 Soddos eyo kat
padnrns x.7.A. Similar in meaning,
though not identical, is the expres-
sion in 2 Cor. i. 5, where the suffer-
ings of Christ are said to ‘overflow’
(wepiooevew) upon the Apostle. The
theological difficulty which this plain
and natural interpretation of dvyrava-
@Aypovv is supposed to involve will
be considered in the note on ray
Odivewv.

Ta votepnuara] ‘the things lack-
ing” This same word dorépnua ‘ de-
ficiency’ occurs with dvamAnpoor 1 Cor.
xvi, 17, Phil. ii. 30, and with mpocava-
adnpovv 2 Cor..ix. 12,xi.9. Its direct
opposite is mepiocevpa ‘abundance,
superfluity,’ 2 Cor. viii. 13, 14 ; comp.
Luke xxi. 4. Another interpretation,
which makes dorépyya an antithesis
to mporépnya, explaining it ‘the later’
as opposed to the earlier ‘sufferings
of Christ,’ is neither supported by the
usage of the word nor consistent with
dyravam\npo.

tav Odifvewy rov Xpicrov| ‘of the
afflictions of Christ, i.e. which Christ
endured. This seems to be the only
natural interpretation of the words,
Others have explained them as mean-
ing ‘the afflictions imposed by Christ,
or ‘the afflictions endured for Christ’s
sake, or ‘the afflictions which re-
semble those of Christ” All such
interpretations put a more or less
forced meaning on the genitive. All
alike ignore the meaning of dyri in
avravarAnpo. which points to a dis-
tinction of persons suffering. Others
again suppose the words to describe
St Paul’s own afflictions regarded as
Christ’s, because Christ suffers in His
suffering Church ; e.g. Augustine i
Psalm. exiii. § 3 (rv. p. 1590) ‘ Patitur,
inquit, adhuc Christus pressuram, non
in carne sua in qua ascendit in czelum,

166

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[I 25

ans cas y e \ a / 5) Z /
Creve Gy. Saki Moy ep Tey. CO nos cyrus)
> ¢ 9 , Le 5) 5) A If \
€or 7 exkkKAnoia® ys éyevounv éyw OlaKovos KaTa THY

sed in carne mea que adhuc laborat
in terra’ quoting Gal. ii. 20. This
last is a very favourite explanation,
and has much to recommend it. It
cannot be charged with wresting the
meaning of ai OdiWers rod Xpiorod.
Moreover it harmonizes with St Paul’s
mode of speaking elsewhere. But, like
the others, it is open to the fatal ob-
jection that it empties the first pre-
position in dvravarAnpo of any force.
The-central idea in this interpretation
is the identification of the suffering
Apostle with the suffering Christ,
whereas dyravarAnpé emphasizes the
distinction between the two. It is

therefore inconsistent with this con-~

text, however important may be the
truth which it expresses.

The theological difficulty, which
these and similar explanations are in-
tended to remove, is imaginary and
not real. There is a sense in which
it is quite legitimate to speak of
Christ’s afflictions as incomplete, a
sense in which they may be, and in-
deed must be, supplemented. For
the sufferings of Christ may be con-
sidered from two different points of
view. They are either satisfactorie
or edificatorie. They have their
sacrificial efficacy, and they have their
ministerial utility. (1) From the
former point of view the Passion of
Christ was the one full perfect and
sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satis-
faction for the sins of the whole
world. In this sense there could
be no vorepnya of Christ’s sufferings;
for, Christ’s sufferings being different
in kind from those of His servants,
the two are incommensurable. But
in this sense the Apostle would surely
have used some other expression
such as tov oravpov (i. 20, Eph. ii.
16 etc.), or rov Oavdrov (i. 22, Rom.
vy. 10, Heb. ii. 14, etc.), but hardly
tov OriWewv. Indeed Oris, ‘afilic-

tion,’ is not elsewhere applied in
the New Testament in any sense
to Christ’s sufferings, and certainly
would not suggest a sacrificial act.
(2) From the latter point of view
it is a simple matter of fact that the
afflictions of every saint and mar-
tyr do supplement the afilictions of
Christ. The Church is built up by
repeated acts of self-denial in succes-
sive individuals and successive gene-
rations. They continue the work which
Christ began. They bear their part
in the sufferings of Christ (2 Cor. i. 7
kowovot tav mabynparev, Phil. iii. 10
koweviay Tov wabnuatov); but St Paul
would have been the last to say that
they bear their part in the atoning
sacrifice of Christ. This being so,-St
Paul does not mean to say that his
own sufferings filled up all the vo-
tepnuara, but only that they went to-
wards filling them up. The present
tense dvravamAnpe denotes an incho-
ate, and not a complete act. These
voteprpata Will never be fully supple-
mented, until the struggle of the
Church with sin and unbelief is
brought to a close.

Thus the idea of expiation or sa-
tisfaction is wholly absent from this
passage; and with it is removed the
twofold temptation which has beset
theologians of opposite schools. (1)
On the one hand Protestant commen-
tators, rightly feeling that any inter-
pretation which infringed the com-
pleteness of the work wrought by
Christ’s death must be wrong, be-
cause it would make St Paul contra-
dict himself on a cardinal point of his
teaching, have been tempted to wrest
the sense of the words. They have
emptied avravamAnpo of its proper
force ; or they have assigned a false
meaning to vorepyuara; or they have
attached a non-natural sense to the
genitive rov Xpicrod. (2) On the

I, 26]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

167

5. r ~ ~ 4 ~ y y > € rot ~
oikovopiay Tov Geod tiv SoGeicay por eis Vas, TANPwWO-at
a ans \ “é \ /
Tov NOYov TOU Geov, TO puaTNPLOY TO a7TOKEKpUMEVOY

_ other hand Romanist commentators,

while protesting (as they had a right
to do) against these methods of inter-
pretation, have fallen into the opposite
error. They have found in this pas-
sage an assertion of the merits of the
saints, and (as a necessary conse-
quence) of the doctrine of indul-
gences. They have not observed that,
if the idea of vicarious satisfaction
comes into the passage at all, the satis-
faction of St Paul is represented here
as the same in kind with the satisfac-
tion of Christ, however different it may
be in degree; and thus they have truly
exposed themselves to the reproach
which Estius indignantly repudiates
on their behalf, ‘quasi Christus non
satis passus sit ad redemptionem nos-
tram, ideoque supplemento martyrum
opus habeat; quod impium est sen-
tire, quodque Catholicos dicere non
minus impie calumniantur heeretici.’
It is no part of a commentator here
to enquire generally whether the Ro-
man doctrine of the satisfaction of the
saints can in any way be reconciled
with St Paul’s doctrine of the satis-
faction of Christ. It is sufficient to
say that, so far as regards this par-
ticular passage, the Roman doctrine
can only be imported into it at the
cost of a contradiction to the Pauline
doctrine. It is only fair to add how-
ever that Estius himself says, ‘ quee
quidem doctrina, etsi Catholica et
Apostolica sit, atque aliunde satis
probetur, ex hoc tamen Apostoli loco
nobis non videtur admodum solide
statui posse’ But Roman Catholic
commentators generally find this
meaning in the text, as may be seen
from the notes of & Lapide.

Tov gapatos avrov| An antithesis
of the Apostle’s own flesh and Christ’s
body. This antithetical form of ex-
pression obliges St Paul to explain
what he means by the body of Christ,

& €oTw 7 ékkAnoia; comp. ver. 18.
Contrast the explanation in ver. 22 év
T@ Topat THs TapKos avrod, and see
the note there.

25. Thy oikovoplay K.7.A.] ‘steward-
ship in the house of God? The word
oixovonia seems to have two senses:
(1) ‘The actual administration of a
household’; (2) ‘The office of the ad-
ministrator. For the former mean-
ing see the note on Hphes. i. 10; for
the latter sense, which it has here,
compare I Cor. ix. 17 oikxovopiay reni-
oreviat, Luke xvi. 2—4, Isaiah xxii.
19, 21. So the Apostles and minis-
ters of the Church are called oixovopor,
1 Cor. iv. I, 2, Tit. i. 7: comp. 1 Pet.
iv. 10.

eis vuas| ‘to youward,’ i.e. ‘for
the benefit of you, the Gentiles’; eis
vpas being connected with tiv dodei-
cay pot, a8 in Ephes. iii. 2 tHv oixovo-
piay Tis xapttos TOU Ceod ris Sobcions
prot els vas; comp. Rom. xv. 16 dua
THY xapww thy Sobcicdy por vad Tod
Ocod eis To eivar pe evroupyov Xproroo
"Inood eis ra €Ovn.

mAnpoaat| ‘to fulfil, i.e. ‘to preach
fully,’ ‘to give its complete develop-
ment to’; as Rom. xv. 19 ware pe
amo “Iepovoadip Kal KiKd@ péxpt Tod
"TAAvpikod memAnpexévar Td evayyéALov
tov Xpiorod. Thus ‘the word of
God’ here is ‘the Gospel,’ as in most
places (1 Cor. xiv. 36, 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv.
2, etc.), though not always (e.g. Rom.
ix. 6), in St Paul, as also in the Acts.
The other interpretation, ‘to accom-
plish the promise of God,’ though
suggested by such passages as 1 Kings
ii, 27 mAnpwbijvat ro ppya Kevpiov,
2 Chron. Xxxvi. 21 7AnpwOjvar Ad-yov
Kupiov, ete., is alien to the context
here.

26. To pvornpiov] This is not the
only term borrowed from the ancient
mysteries, which St Paul employs to
describe the teaching of the Gospel

168

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. bleey

> A ~ Lie 4 \ ry A ra lot rod 4 5 7

a0 TWY ALWYwWY Kal a7TO TwY yEvEewY, VUY O€ E*avepwhn
~ e , > a 9 e a7 e \ ,

Tols aylots avTou, * ois iCGeAnoev 0 CeEos Yvopioat Th
\ qn a , ~ i i ~

TO TNOUTOS TIS do€ns TOU uaTHOLOU TOUTOUV €Y TOIS

The word réAevov just below, ver. 28,
seems to be an extension of the same
metaphor. In Phil. iv. 12 again we
have the verb peyinua: andin Ephes.
i. 14 odpayifec Oa is perhaps an image
derived from the same source. So
too the Ephesians are addressed as
TlatAov cuppvora in Ign. Hphes. 12.
The Christian teacher is thus regarded
as a iepoddavtns (see Epict. iii, 21.
13 sq.) who initiates his disciples into
the rites. There is this difference
however ; that, whereas the heathen
mysteries were strictly confined to a
narrow circle, the Christian mysteries
are freely communicated toall. There
is therefore an intentional paradox in
the employment of the image by St
Paul. See the notes on zavra avOpo-
gov Téevov below.

Thus the idea of secresy or reserve
disappears when pvotnpioy is adopted
into the Christian vocabulary by St
Paul: and the word signifies simply
‘a truth which was once hidden but
now is revealed,’ ‘a truth which with-
out special revelation would have been
unknown.’ Of the nature of the truth
itself the word says nothing. It may
be transcendental, incomprehensible,
mystical, mysterious, in the modern
sense of the term (1 Cor. xv. 51, Eph.
v. 32): but this idea is quite acciden-
tal, and must be gathered from the
special circumstances of the case, for
it cannot be inferred from the word
itself. Hence pvorjpioy is almost
universally found in connexion with
words denoting revelation or publica-
tion; €.g. dmoxad’rreiy, aroxadv\is,
Rom. xvi. 25, Ephes. iii. 3, 5, 2 Thess.
ii. 7; yvopifew Rom. xvi. 26, Ephes. i.
Q, iii. 3, 10, Vi. 19; havepody Col. iv. 3,
Rom, xvi. 26, 1 Tim. iii. 16; Aadeiv iy.
3,1 Cor. iL. 7, xiv. 2; Aéyew, « Cor,
XV. 51.

But the one special ‘mystery’ which

absorbs St Paul’s thoughts in the
Epistles to the Colossians and Ephe-
sians is the free admission of the
Gentiles on equal terms to the pri-
vileges of the covenant. For this he
is a prisoner; this he is bound to
proclaim fearlessly (iv. 3, Ephes. vi.
Ig); this, though hidden from all time,
was communicated to him by a special
revelation (Ephes. iii. 3sq.); in this had
God most signally displayed the lavish
wealth of His goodness (ver. 27, ii.
2 8q., Ephes. i. 6sq., iii. 8sq.). In one
passage only throughout these two
epistles is pvotypiov applied to any-
thing else, Ephes. v. 32. The same
idea of the pvornpiov appears very
prominently also in the thanksgiving
(added apparently later than the rest
of the letter) at the end of the Epistle
to the Romans, xvi. 25 sq. puornpiov...
eis Umakony miorews eis Tmavta Ta €Ovy ,
yvwpioberros.

dro tov aidveyv «.t.r.] The pre-
position is doubtless temporal here,
being opposed to voy, as in the pa-
rallel passage, Ephes. iii. 9: comp.
Rom. xvi. 25 xara droxahuyw pvorn-
plov xpdvots aiwviots ceorynpevor,
I Cor. ii. 7 Geod codiay ev pvotnpio
THY diroKeKpuppeyny NY Tmpowpicev
Gcds mpd TaYv aiwvayv. So too aw
aidvos, Acts iii. 21, xv. 18, Ps. xcii.
3, etc.; do karaBodjs koopov, Matt.
xiii. 35, XXV. 34, etc.

Tav yeveav| An aioy is made up of
many yeveai; comp. Ephes. iii. 21 eis
maoas Tas yeveds Tov aidvos Tay aid-
vov, Is. li. 9 os yeved aidvos (where
the Hebrew has the plural ‘gene-
rations’) Hence the order here.
Not only was this mystery unknown
in remote periods of antiquity, but
even in recent generations. It came
upon the world as a sudden surprise.
The moment of its revelation was the
moment of its fulfilment.

there are various readings.

I. 28]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

169

¢ \ a \ ~ ,
GOveowv, 5 éotiw Xpirros év vuiv, H EATS THs doEns°
¢ q~ ~ £ A
Boy sucis KaTayyeAAouev vovleTobvTes Tavta avOpw-

27.

viv 8¢ x7.X.] An indicative clause
is substituted for a participial, which
would otherwise have been more na-
tural, for the sake of emphasizing the
statement; comp. ver. 22 vuvi dé dzro-
karnAddynre, andsee Winer § xiii. p.7 17.

27. 7beAncev]‘ willed, ‘was pleased,’
It was God’s grace: it was no merit
of their own. See the note on i. I
dud OeAjparos Ceo.

Td mrovros] The ‘ezealth of God,’
as manifested in His dispensation of
grace, is a prominent idea in these
epistles: comp. ii. 2, Ephes. i. 7, 18,
iii. 8, 16; comp. Rom. xi. 33. See
above, p. 43sq. St Paul uses the
neuter and the masculine forms in-
differently in these epistles (e.g. ro
mAovros Ephes. i. 7, 6 wAodros Ephes.
i. 18), a8 in his other letters (e.g. r6
mAodros 2 Cor. viii. 2, 6 mAodTvs Rom.
ix. 23). In most passages however
On the
neuter forms 7d wAovTos, To GAos, etc.
see Winer § ix. p. 76.

tis Soéns] ive. ‘of the glorious
manifestation? This word in Hel-
lenistic Greek is frequently used of a
bright light; e.g. Luke ii. 9 mepséAap-
wev, Acts xxii. 11 rod dards, I Cor.
XV. 41 7jAlov, ceAnvns, etc., 2 Cor. iii. 7
Tod mpocerov [Mavocas]. Hence it
is applied generally to a divine mani-
JSestation, even where there is no phy-
sical accompaniment of light; and
more especially to the revelation of
Godin Christ (e.g. Joh. i. 14, 2 Cor.
iv. 4, etc.). The expression aAotros
ris Sons occurs again, Rom. ix. 23,
Ephes. i. 18, iii, 16. See above, ver.
11 with the note.

év trois €Ovecw] i.e. ‘as exhibited
among the Gentiles” It was just
here that this ‘mystery, this dispen-
sation of grace, achieved its greatest
triumphs and displayed its transcend-
ant glory; @aivera: pév yap Kal év ére-
pos, writes Chrysostom, modAA@ de

Os éoTUW.

mA€oy €v TOUTOLS 7 TOAAT TOU pvoTnpiov
doéa. Here too was its wealth ; for
it overflowed all barriers of caste or
race. Judaism was ‘beggarly’ (Gal.
iv. 9) in comparison, since its treasures
sufficed only for a few.

5 éorw] The antecedent is pro-
bably rod pacrnpiov; comp. ii. 2 Tov
pvotnpiov Tod Geod, Xpiorod ev @ elow
MWAVTES K.T-A.

Xpucrés ev tvpiv|] ‘Christ in you,’
i.e. ‘you Gentiles’ Not Christ, but
Christ given freely to the Gentiles,
is the ‘mystery’ of which St Paul
speaks; see the note on puornjpioy
above. Thus the various reading, os
for 6, though highly supported, inter-
feres with the sense. With Xpuords
év dpiv compare weO” nudv Ocds Matt.
i. 23. It may be a question however,
whether év vuiv means ‘within you’
or ‘among you. The former is per-
haps the more probable interpreta-
tion, as suggested by Rom. viii. 10,
2 Oor. xiii. 5, Gal. iv. 19; comp.
Ephes. iii. 17 xarouxjoat tov Xpiorov
dua tis miorews év Tais Kapdias Vpar.

4 eAmis] Comp. I Tim. i. 2; so 7
[xown) | Aris puov Ign. Hph. 21, Magn.
11, Philad. 5, etc., applied to our Lord.

28, 29. ‘This Christ we, the Apo-
stles and Evangelists, proclaim with-
out distinction and without reserve.
We know no restriction either of
persons or of topics. We admonish
every man and instruct every man.
We initiate every man in all the mys-
teries of wisdom. It is our single
aim to present every man fully and
perfectly taught in Christ. For this
end I train myself in the discipline of
self-denial; for this end I commit my-
self to the arena of suffering and toil,
putting forth in the conflict all that
energy which He inspires, and which
works in me so powerfully.’

28. nets] ‘ae,’ the preachers; the.
same opposition as in 1 Cor. iv. 8, 10,

170

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

He28

\ ‘4 , sf 9 / 7
mov Kat OacKovTes mavTa avOpwrov év maan codia,
e if id af VA ~
iva wapactTnowpev TavTa avOpwrov TéNeLov év Xpioto:

Ix. 11,.2 Cor xi: 5 sq. 1 Thess. i:
138q., etc. The Apostle hastens, as
usual, to speak of the part which he
was privileged to bear in this glorious
dispensation. He is constrained to
magnify his office. See the next note,
and comp. ver. 23.

ov nets x.7.A.] AS in St Paul’s own
language at Thessalonica, Acts xvil. 3
ov €y® katayyé\Ao vpiv, and at
Athens, Acts xvii. 23 rodro éyo ka-
TayyAdro vpiv, in both which pas-
sages, as here, emphasis is laid on the
person of the preacher.

voulerouvtes] ‘admonishing.” The
two words voverety and é:dackety pre-
sent complementary aspects of the
preacher’s duty, and are related the
one to the other, a8 peravora to riotts,
‘warning to repent, instructing in
the faith” For the relation of vovdereiy
to peravo.a see Plut. Mor. p. 68 verre
TO vovJerovv Kal peTavoray éurrotody,
P. 452 7 vovOecia kai o Woyos éeurovet
peravotay kal aicyvynv. The two verbs
vovGerety and dudackey are connected
in Plato Protag. 323 p, Legg. 845 B,
Plut. Mor. p. 46 (comp. p. 39), Dion
Chrys. Or. xxxiii. p. 369; the sub-
stantives d.dayy7 and vovOernois in
Plato Resp. 399 B. Similarly vovde-
reiv and mei@ew occur together in
Arist. Rhet. ii. 18. For the two func-
tions of the preacher’s office, cor-
responding respectively to the two
words, see St Paul’s own language in
Acts xx. 21 Osapaprupdpevos...ryy eis
@cdv petavotav kal wiotiy eis roy
Kvptov nuov “Incodv.

mavra avOpwrov| Three times re-
peated for the sake of emphasizing
the universality of the Gospel. This
great truth, for which St Paul gave
his life, was now again endangered
by the doctrine of an intellectual ex-
clusiveness taught by the Gnosticizers
at Colossz, as before it had been
endangered by the doctrine of a

ecremonial exclusiveness taught by
the Judaizers in Galatia. See above,
Pp. 77; 92, 98 sq. For the repetition
of mavra compare especially 1 Cor. x.
I sq., Where zavres is five times, and
ab. xii. 29, 30, where it is seven times
repeated ; see also Rom. ix. 6, 7, xi.
32;.¥: Cor xil19, Sill, 7) X1y; GY, be,
‘rranscribers have been offended at
this characteristic repetition here, and
consequently have omitted wavra av-
@parov in one place or other.

ev racy copia] The Gnostic spoke
of a blind faith for the many, of a
higher yvéors for the few. St Paul
declares that the fullest wisdom is
offered to all alike. The character of
the teaching is as free from restriction,
as are the qualifications of the recipi-
ents, Comp. li. 2, 3 may mAovros ris
mAnpopopias THs ouvérews...7avTES ot
O@noavpoi Tis codias kai yrooews.

mapactnowpev| See the note on
mapaoTnoa, ver. 22.

tédecov] So 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7 codiay dé
Aadovpev €v Tois Tedelols...C€00 o-
giav ev pvotnpio THY dmroKexpupperny.
In both these passages the epithct
TéXecos is probably a metaphor bor-
rowed from the ancient mysteries,
where it seems to have been applied
to the fully instructed, as opposed to
the novices: comp. Plato Phaedr.
249 © TeA€ous det TeAeTAs TeAOUpeEVos
TéAEOS OVT@S pOVOS YiyveTal...250 B, C
eldov Te Kal €redovvTo TedeTaY Hy Oé€pLs
A€yery pakaplorarny...pwvovpevol TE Kat
emomTevovtes ev avyn Kabapa, Symp.
209 E ravra...cav od punbeins’ ra O€
Té\ea Kal €OMTLKG...0vK O10 Et OLS T
dv eins, Plut. Fragm. de An. vi. 2
(v. p. 726 Wyttenb.) o mavreAns 75
kai peuunuevos (with the context),
Dion Chrys. Or. xii. p. 203 rv odo-
kKAnpov Kat Tw OvtTe Tedeiay TeAETHY
pvovpevoy; see Valcknaer on Eurip.
Hippol. 25, and Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 33
Sq., p. 126sq. Somewhat similarly in

——=

~~ Se

MLE EIEIO: OI EO ——T

I. 29] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. r7t

e a , A \ ine ’
%eis O Kal KOTTLO dy wyiComevos KaTa THV EVEpYElaV au-
on \ b) - £ > \ , .
TOU THY Evepyoumevny Ev Ep0L EV OUVa[AEL.

the Lxx, 1 Chron. xxv. 8 redeiwy kal
pavOavovrwy stands for ‘the teachers
(or the wise) and the scholars’ So
also in 2 Pet. i. 16-€momrat yevnOevres
Tis ekeivou peyadewrnros We seem to
have the same metaphor. Asan illus-
tration it may be mentioned that
Plato and Aristotle called the higher
philosophy é¢momrixoy, because those
who have transcended the bounds
of the material, ofov évredf [I]. év te-
herg| réAos Exew pirtocodiay [pirogo-
dias| vopifover, Plut. Afor. 382 D, B.
For other metaphorical expressions
in St Paul, derived from the myste-
ries, see above on pvaripioy ver. 26.
Influenced probably by this heathen
use of rédevos, the early Christians
applied it to the baptized, as opposed
to the catechumens: e.g. Justin Dial.
8 (p. 225 0) mdpeoriy emiyvovre cot Tov
Xpicrov rod Oeod Kal redeio yevouero
evdapoveiv, Clem. Hom. iii, 29 iroxo-
peiv poe KeAevoas, ds pnw eiAnpore Td
mpos carnpiay Barricpa, tois 7dn Te-
Aelous hyn K.7.A., Xi. 36 Barricas...76y
Aourdy réAevoy dvra x.t.r.3 and for
later writers see Suicer Tes, 8. vv. re-
Aewdw, TeAeiwots. At all events we
may ascribe to its connexion with the
mysteries the fact that it was adopted
by Gnostics at a later date, and most
probably by the Gnosticizers at this
time, to distinguish the possessors of
the higher yydéors from the vulgar
herd of believers: see the passages
quoted in the note on Phil. iii. 15.
While employing the favourite Gnostic
term, the Apostle strikes at the root
of the Gnostic doctrine. The lan-
guage descriptive of the heathen mys-
teries is transferred by him to the
Christian dispensation, that he may
thus more effectively contrast the
things signified. The true Gospel also
has its mysteries, its hierophants, its
initiation: but these are open to all
alike. In Christ every believer is ré-

hecos, for he has been admitted as
éromrns of its most profound, most
awful, secrets. See again the note
On droxpudor, ii. 3.

29. eis 0) i.e. eis TO Tapactioa mayra
avOparov rédecov, ‘that I may initiate
all mankind in the fulness of this mys-
tery, ‘that I may preach the Gospel
to all without reserve’ If St Paul
had been content to preach an exclu-
sive Gospel, he might have saved him-
self from more than half the troubles
of his life.

komia| This word is used especi-
ally of the labour undergone by the
athlete in his training, and therefore
fitly introduces the metaphor of dyw-
wCopevos: comp. I Tim. iv. 10 eds rov-
To yap Komiapev Kal dyovCopeba (the
correct reading), and see the passages
quoted on Phil. ii. 16.

dyaucopevos| ‘contending in the
lists) the metaphor being continued

in the next verse (ii. 1), jAikov dydva; *

comp. iv. 12. These words dydv, dyw-
via, ayoviCerOa, are only found in St
Paul and the Pauline writings (Luke,
Hebrews) in the New Testament.
They occur in every group of St Paul’s
Epistles. The use here most resembles
1 Thess. ii. 2 AaAjoas mpos vas TO
evayyeAtoy TOU Oeod ev TOAAG ayant.
évepyoupevny| Comp. Eph.iii.20. For
the difference between évepyciv and
evepyeioOa see the note on Gal. v. 6.
II. 1—3. ‘I spoke of an arena and
a conflict in describing my apostolic
labours. The image was not lightly
chosen. I would have youknowthatmy
care is not confined to my own direct
and personal disciples. I wish you to
understand the magnitude of the
struggle, which my anxiety for you
costs me—for you and for your neigh-
bours of Laodicea, and for all who,
like yourselves, have never met me
face to face in the flesh. I am con-
stantly wrestling in spirit, that the

172

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

/ . e ~ IAT r) - of ¢
II. *O€dw ydp Upas eldeval, nAlkoy dywva EX UTED

Cane \ = 2 O , SG ? C7 \

Uuav Kat Twv év Aaodixia Kal door ovX Ewpakay TO
, t / J oe

mpocwmrov pov €v capkl, *iva mapaxAnOaow ai Kapdia

hearts of all such may be confirmed
and strengthened in the faith; that
they may be united in love; that they
may attain to all the unspeakable
wealth which comes from the firm
conviction of an understanding mind,
may be brought to the perfect know-
ledge of God's mystery, which is no-
thing else than Christ—Christ con-
taining in Himself all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge hidden away’

I. O¢do x7.A.] As in I Cor. xi. 3.
The corresponding negative form, ov
Ceo [Oedoper] dyads dyvoeiv, is the more
common expression in St Paul; Rom.
Li Goki25,.0 Or xX. 13x 1,-2. Cor
i, 8, 1 Thess. iv. 13.

ayova| The arena of the contest to
which aywvi¢opevos in the preceding
verse refers may be either outward or
inward. It will include the ‘fightings
without,’ as well as the ‘fears within?
Here however the inward struggle,
the wrestling in prayer, is the predo-
minant idea, as in iv. 12 wavrore dywvi-
Copevos vmép tuav év Tais mpocevyais
iva oradnre K.T.A.

tav ev Aaodixia] The Laodiceans
were exposed to the same doctrinal
perils as the Colossians: see above,
pp. 2, 41 8q. The Hierapolitans are
doubtless included in cat dco «k.7.A.
(comp. iv. 13), but are not mentioned
here by name, probably because they
were less closely connected with Co-
lossze (see iv. 15 sq.),and perhaps also
because the danger was less threaten-
ing there.

kai doo K7.A.] ‘and all who, like
yourselves, have not seen, etc.’; where
the kal doo. introduces the whole class
to which the persons previously enu-
merated belong; so Acts iv. 6”Avvas
6 apxtepeds Kat Kaiadas kal *Iwavyns kat
*AdéEavdpos Kal dcot joay ek yévous
dpxvepatixov, Rey. Xvili. 17 kai was Kv-
Bepynrns kal was o émt romov méwv Kal

vadra kal doot THY Oddacaay épyatov-
ra. Even asimple xai will sometimes
introduce the general after the parti-
cular, e.g. Acts v. 29 o Ilérpos kat oi
arootoko, Ar. Nub. 413 ev ’A@nvaiors
kat Tois “EAAno., etc.; see Kiihner
Gramm. § 521, 1. p.791. Onthe other
hand kai door, occurring in an enume-
ration, sometimes introducesa different
class from those previously mentioned,
as e.g. in Herod. vii. 185. As a pure
grammatical question therefore it is
uncertain whether St Paul’s language
here implies his personal acquaintance
with his correspondents or the con-
trary. But in all such cases the sense
of the context must be our guide.
In the present instance kai dco is
quite out of place, unless the Colos-
sians and Laodiceans also were per-
sonally unknown to the Apostle. There
would be no meaning in singling
out individuals who were known to
him, and then mentioning compre-
hensively a// who were unknown to
him: see above, p. 28, note 4. Hence
we may infer from the expression
here, that St Paul had never visited
Colossee—an inference which has been
already shown (p. 23 sq.) to accord
both with the incidental language of
this epistle elsewhere and with the
direct historical narrative of the Acts.

éwpaxav| For this ending of the 3rd
pers. plur. perfect in -ay see Winer
§ xiii. p. 90. The received text reads
éwpaxaot. In this passage the w form
has the higher support; but below
in ver. 18 the preponderance of au-
thority favours éopaxey rather than
édpaxev. On the use of the form in o
see Buttmann Ausf Griech. Sprachi.
§ 84, L. p. 325.

2. mapakdnbdow] ‘encouraged,
confirmed, i.e. ‘comforted’ in the
older and wider meaning of the word
(‘confortati’), ‘but not with its mo-

II. 3] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 173

> ~ / > 9 4! \ 3 a a

avTov, cvuBiBacbevtes év ayarn Kat Eis TWaY TAOUTOS
54 fe / > / 4G

Tis TAnpopopias Tis TUvETEWwS, Els ETLYVWOW TOU pv-
a ~ 7 > ©. > \ ‘A 5 e

aTnpiov TOU Qeov, Xpiorov %év w eloww mavTes ot On-

dern and restricted sense: see mapd-
kAnows Phil. ii, 1. For wapaxadeiv ras
kapdias comp. iv. 8, Ephes. vi. 22, 2
Thess. ii. 17.

ai xapdia] They met the Apostle
heart to heart, though not face to
face. We have here the same oppo-

_ sition of capSia and mpdcemoy as in

1 Thess. ii. 17, though less directly
expressed ; see ver. 5.

avrév| Where we should expect
vpav, but the substitution of the third
person for the second is suggested by
the immediately preceding kali dor.
This substitution confirms the inter-
pretation of kai doco. already given.
Unless the Colossians are included in
doot, they must be excluded by avrav.
Yet this exclusion is hardly conceiva-
ble in such a context.

ovpBiBacbérres | ‘they being united,
compacted, for cvpBiB8a¢erv must here
have its common meaning, as it has
elsewhere in this and the companion
epistle: ver. 19 dia trav ddoyv kai
ovvdeopor...cuuBuBalopnevor, Ephes. iv.
16 wav TO OOpa cvvappodoyotpevoy Kal
cupBiBatopevov. Otherwise we might
be disposed to assign to this verb here
the sense which it always bears in the
Lxx (e.g. in Is, xl. 13, 14, quoted
‘in 1 Cor. ii. 16), ‘instructed, taught,’
as it is rendered in the Vulgate. Its
usage in the Acts is connected with
this latter sense; e.g. ix. 22 cvpBiBatov
‘proving, xvi. 10 oupSiBagtovres ‘con-
cluding’; and so in xix. 33 cuveBiBa-
cay ’Adé~avdpov (the best supported
reading) can only mean ‘instructed
Alexander. For the different sense
of the nominative absolute see the
note on iii. 16. The received text
substitutes cup 8:Bacbevrer here.

ev ayarn| For love is the civiecpos
(iii. 14) of perfection.

kai eis] ‘and brought unto, the
thought being supplied from the pre-

ceding cvpSiBacbevres, which involves
an idea of motion, comp. Joh. xx. 7
évrervAtypévov eis Eva Toro.

mav mAovTos| This reading is better
supported than either wav rd mAotvros
or mavra mAovTov, while, as the inter-
mediate reading, it also explains the
other two.

Tis mAnpodopias] ‘the full assu-
rance, for such seems to be the
meaning of the substantive wherever
it occurs in the New Testament; 1
Thess. i. 5 €v wAnpodopia modd7, Heb.
Vi. II mpos rHv mAnpoopiay rijs eAridos,
X. 22 év mAnpohopia ticrews, comp.
Clem. Rom. 42 pera wAnpoopias mvev-
paros ayiov. With the exception of
1 Thess. i. 5 however, all the Biblical
passages might bear the other sense
‘fulness’: see Bleek on Heb. vi. 11.
For the verb see the note on wemAn-
poopnpévor below, iv. 12.

éntyvooiv| See the note on i. 9.

Tod pvotnpiov K.r.A.| ‘the mystery
of God, even Christ in whom, etc.,
Xptorod being in apposition with rod
pvotnpiov; comp. i. 27 Tov puotnpiov
TovTov...0 eat Xproris ev viv, I Tim.
iii. 16 TO Tis evoeBeias pvoTnptov, "Os
edavepo6yx.t.r. The reasons for adopt-
ing the reading rod Gcod Xpicrov are
given in the detached note on various
readings. Other interpretations of this
reading are; (1) ‘the God Christ,’
taking Xpiorod in apposition with
cot ; or (2) ‘the God of Christ,’
making it the genitive after Qcod:
but both expressions are without a
parallel in St Paul. The mystery
here is not ‘Christ,’ but ‘Christ as
containing in Himself all the treasures
of wisdom’; see the note on i. 27
Xpicros ev piv. For the form of the
sentence comp. Ephes, iv. 15, 167 xep-
adj, Xpiotos €€ ov wav TO oGpa k.T.A.

3. mdvres| So wav mdotros ver. 2,
raon copia ii. 28. These repetitions

7A EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(iis

cavpol THs Godias Kal yvwoews dmoKpupot. *TovTO

serve to emphasize the character of
the Gospel, which is as complete in
itself, as it is universal in its appli-
cation.

codias kal yodoews| Thetwo words
occur together again Rom. xi. 33 @
Babos mAovrov Kai codias Kal yyooews
cov, 1 Cor. xii. 8. They are found
in conjunction also several times
in the Luxx of Eccles. i. 7, 16, 18, ii.
21, 26, ix. 10, where 75M is repre-
sented by codia and nyt by yvaors.
While yvdo.s is simply intuitive,
sopia is ratiocinative also. While
yveots applies chiefly to the appre-
hension of truths, copia superadds the
power of reasoning about them and
tracing their relations. When Bengel
on 1 Cor. xii. 8 sq. says, ‘ Cognitia
[yvoots] est quasi visus ; sapientia
|codia] visus cum sapore,’ he is so
iar right; but when he adds, ‘ cogni-
tio, rerum agendarum; sapientia, re-
rum eeternarum, he is quite wide of
the mark. Substantially the same,
and equally wrong, is St Augustine’s
distinction de Trin. xii. 20, 25 (VIII.
Pp. 923, 926) ‘intelligendum est ad
contemplationem sapientiam [codiav],
ad actionem scientiam [yyéouw] perti-
nere...quod alia [codia] sit intellec-
tualis cognitio seternarum rerum, alia
[yveocs |rationalis temporalium’(comp.
xiv. 3, p. 948), and again de Div.
Quest. ad Simpl. ii. 2 § 3 (VI. p. 114)
‘ita discerni probabiliter solent, ut
sapientia pertineat ad intellectum
veternorum, scientia vero ad ea quee
sensibus corporis experimur. This is
directly opposed to usage. In Aris-
totle Lith. Nic, i. I yvdous is opposed
to mpaéis. In St Paul it is connected
with the apprehension of eternal mys-
teries, 1 Cor. xili. 2 eiS6 ra pvorn-
pla mwavta kal Tacay thy yvoow. On
the relation of copia to ovvecis see
above, i. 9.

dmoxpupor] So x Cor. i. 7 Nadodpev
cod aodiay é€v pvotnpie, THY dio-
kexpuppevny. AS before in réAeos

(i. 28), so here again in doxpudo the
Apostle adopts a favourite term of
the Gnostic teachers, only that he may
refute a favourite doctrine. The word
apocrypha was especially applied to
those esoteric writings, for which
such sectarians claimed an auctortias
secreta (Aug. c. Faust. xi, 2, VII. p.
219) and which they carefully guarded
from publication after the manner of
their Jewish prototypes the Essenes
(see above, p. 89 sq.): comp. Iren. i.
20. I auvOnrov mAROos amoxpvpev kal
vidav ypapav, Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.
I5 (p. 357) BiBAouvs amoxpudous tav-
Spos tovde of tHv Ipodixou periovres
aipeow avyovot KextnoOa, tb. iii, 4
(p. 524) éppvn dé adrois ro Soypa &k
Tivos amoxpudov. See also the appli-
cation of the text Prov. ix. 17 dprwv
kpuhlov noews dace to these heretics
in Strom. i. 19 (p. 375). Thus the word
apocrypha in the first instance was
an honourable appellation applicd by
the heretics themselves to their eso-
teric doctrine and their secret books;
but owing to the general character
of these works the term, as adopted
by orthodox writers, got to signify
‘false, ‘spurious.’ The early fathers
never apply it, as it is now applied,
to deutero-canonical writings, but
confine it to swupposititious and he-
retical works: see Smith’s Dictionary
of the Bible s. vy. In the text St
Paul uses it ckaraypnorikds, as he uses
puvotnpiov. ‘ All the richest treasures
of that secret wisdom,’ he would say,
‘on which you lay so much stress,
are buried in Christ, and being buried
there are accessible to all alike who
seek Him, But, while the term azo-
kpupdos is adopted because it was
used to designate the secret doctrine
2nd writings of the heretics, it is also
entirely in keeping with the metaphor
of the ‘treasure’; e.g. Is. xlv. 3 doc
cot Onoavpods okoTewors damokpvgpous,
1 Mace. i. 23 ¢AaBe rods Onaavpovs
rovs dmoxpvdovs, Dan. xi. 43 €v Trois

a ee ee ee

Se
i

ES

nets
for

II. 5]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

175

, e/ \ Sty ars / 2 ,
ise in iva anders eee mapadoyiCnrat €V mBavonoryice
Set yap Kal TH DapKt amet, ALAA TH TVEVMATL oUY

amoxpudots Tot xypygov Kal Tov dpyupou :
comp. Matt. xiii. 44.

The stress thus laid on dréxpydor
will explain its position. It is not
connected with eiciv, but must be
taken apart as a secondary predicate:
comp. Ver. IO eoré €v alto memAnpo-
pevot, iii. 1 0d 6 Xpioros éorw ev Sea
Tov Gcod Kabjpevos, James i. 17 wav
Swpynpa réeAevov dvwbév eotw, karaBai-
VOV K.T. X.

4—7. ‘I do not say this without a
purpose. I wish to warn you against
any one who would lead you astray
by specious argument and persuasive
rhetoric. For I am not an indifferent
spectator of your doings. Although
I am absent from you in my flesh, yet
Iam present with you in my spirit.
I rejoice to behold the orderly array
and the solid phalanx which your faith
towards Christ presents against the
assaults of the foe. I entreat you
therefore not to abandon the Christ,
as you learnt from Epaphras to know
Him, even Jesus the Lord, but to walk
still in Him as heretofore. I would
have you firmly rooted once for all in
Him, I desire to see you built up
higher in Him day by day, to see you
growing ever stronger and stronger
through your faith, while you remain
true to the lessons taught you of old,
so that you may abound in it, and thus
abounding may pour forth your hearts
in gratitude to God the giver of all’

4. tovTo Aéyw xt.d.|] ‘I say all
this to you, lest you should be led
astray by those false teachers who
speak of another knowledge, of other
mysteries.’ In other connexions rod-
to Aéyw will frequently refer to the
words following (e.g. Gal. iii. 17, 1 Cor.
i, 12); but with wa it points to what
has gone before, as in Joh. v. 34 raidra
eyo iva tyeis owOFre.

The reference in rovro \éyw extends
over vy. I—3, and involves two state-

ments; (1) The declaration that all
knowledge is comprehended in Christ,
vv. 2, 3; (2) The expression of his own
personal anxiety that they should re-
main stedfast in this conviction, vv.
1,2. This last point explains the lan-
guage which follows, ei yap kal rj
oapki K.7T.A.

mapadoyi{nra.| ‘lead you astray by
JSalse reasoning, as in Daniel xiv. 7
pndeis oe mrapadoy:(éoOw (LXX): comp.
James i. 22, Ign. Magn. 3. It is not
an uncommon word either in the Lxx
or in classical writers. The system
against which St Paul here contends
professed to be a diAoaodia (ver. 8)
and had a Aoyor aodias (ver. 23).

ev miOavodoyia| The words m6avo-
Aoyetv (Arist. Lth. Nic. i. 1), riavoro-
yia (Plat. Theet. 162 8), miOavodoy:-
kos (Epictet. i. 8. 7), occur occasion-
ally in classical writers, but do not
bear a bad sense, being most fre-
quently opposed to ddde£is, as pro-
bable argument to strict mathemati-
cal demonstration. This contrast pro-
bably suggested St Paul’s language in
I Cor. ii. 4 ovx év wevOois codias do-
yous GAN ev dmodci€et mvevparos
K.T.A., and may possibly have been
present to his mind here.

5. dAAd]| Frequently introduces the
apodosis after «i or ei cat in St Paul;
e.g. Rom. vi. 5, 1 Cor. ix. 2, 2 Cor. iv.
16, v. 16, xi. 6, xiii. 4 (v. 1.).

To mvevpate] ‘in my spirit, not
‘by the Spirit? We have here the
common antithesis of flesh and spirit,
or body and spirit: comp. 1 Cor. v. 3
drov TO odpart, wapody Sé TO mvevpate.
St Paul elsewhere uses another anti-
thesis, rpoodre and xapdig, to express
this same thing; 1 Thess. ii. 17.

xalpov Kai Brerav] ‘rejoicing and
beholding.” This must not be regarded
as a logical inversion. The contem-
plation of their orderly array, thougu
it might have been first the causo,

176 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(II. 6

CoA Ned , \ , eon A / \ \
UMiV Ell, Yalpwy Kal BAErwv Vuwv THY TAELW Kal TO

7 ~ 3 \ Lf ~
TTEPEWUA THS Els XpLTTOV TIT TEWS UUW).

CWS OUD Tap-

, \ a LZ a
eAa Bere Tov Xpirrov, *Inoovv Tov Kuptoy, €v avTw 7repi-

was afterwards the consequence, of
the Apostle’s rejoicing. He looked,
because it gave him satisfaction to
look.

thy raéw| ‘your orderly array, a
military metaphor: comp. e.g. Xen.
Anab, i. 2. 18 iSotea thy Napmpornra
Kal tTHyv Tag Tov oTpatevpatos éOav-
pace, Plut. Vit. Pyrrh. 16 xaridov
ra&w te kal cbuAakds Kal Kocpov avTay
kal TO oXnpa THs oTpatoTmedeias eOav-
pace. The enforced companionship
of St Paul with the soldiers of the
preetorian guard at this time (Phil. i.
13) might have suggested this image.
At all events in the contemporary
epistle (Ephes. vi. 14.8q.) we have an
elaborate metaphor from the armour
of a soldier.

TO otepewpal ‘solid front, close
phalanx, a continuation of the me-
taphor: comp. 1 Mace. ix. 14 eidev
‘Tovdas drt Baxxidns Kal ro orepéwpa
THs mapepuBodrns ev Tots SeEvois. Some-

what similar are the expressions ore-_

peovyv Tov modepov I Mace. x. 50, xara
THY oTepewow THs paxns Hcclus. xxviii.
10. For the connexion here compare
1 Pet. v. 9 avtiotnre orepeol TH micTet,
Acts Xvi. 5 €orepeotvto TH TioTet.

6. ws ovv mapeddBetre Kt.r.] i.e.
‘Let your conviction and conduct be
in perfect accordance with the doc-
trines and precepts of the Gospel as
it was taught to you.’ For this use
of mapeAaBere ‘ye received from your
teachers, were instructed in,’ comp.
E Core xve 1 3,Gal. 0, Pnilly.-0;
i ‘hess. i. 13,017. 1, 2 Thess. in. 6,
The word zrapadapBavevv implies either
‘to receive as transmitted,’ or ‘ to re-
ceive for transmission’: see the note
on Gal. i. 12. The és of the protasis
suggests a ovras in the apodosis, which
in this case is unexpressed but must
be understood. The meaning of ws

mapedaBere here is explained by the
Kaas éuabere dro ’Eragpa in i. 7; see
the note there, and comp. below, ver. 7
Kaas édiday énre.

tov Xptorov] ‘the Christ, rather
than ‘the Gospel,’ because the central
point in the Colossian heresy was the
subversion of the true idea of the
Christ.

"Incovy rov Kupiov] ‘even Jesus the
Lord, in whom the true conception
of the Christ is realised: comp. Ephes.
Iv. 20, 21, vueis O€ ody ovTws euabere
Tov XptoToy, elye avrov nkovaare kal
€v avt@ ediOayOnre, Kabds EoTLy GAn-
Geta €v TH “Inaov, where the same
idea is more directly expressed. The
genuine doctrine of the Christ con-
sists in (1) the recognition of the his-
torical person Jesus, and (2) the ac-
ceptance of Him as the Lord. This
doctrine was seriously endangered by
the mystic theosophy of the false
teachers. The same order which we
have here occurs also in Ephes. iii. 11
ev T@ Xptot@ “Inood t@ Kupio juav
(the correct reading).

7. €ppitopevo.] Two points may
be noticed here; (1) The expressive
change of tenses; éppifopevo. ‘ firmly
rooted’ once for all, émoixodopovpevor,
BeBaovpevor, ‘built up and strength-
ened’ from hour to hour. (2) The
rapid transition of metaphor, zep-
Maretre, eppiCwpevot, €rorkodopovpevor,
the path, the tree, the building: comp.
Ephes. ili. 17 éppiC@pévoe kat reGepe-
Atwpevot. The metaphors of the plant
and the building occur together in
1 Cor. iii. 9 Geod yedpytov, Ceov oiko-
Soun. The transition in this passage
is made easier by the fact that pigody
(Plut. Mor. 321 D), expifody (Jer. i. 10,
1 Mace. v. 51), mpoppitos (Jos. B. J.
vii. 8. 7), etc., are not uncommonly
used of cities and buildings.

ie | |

Il. 7]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

177

WATEITE, 7épptCwpmevot Kal émrolKodomoupevot év aUTM Kal
qa \

BeBaovpevor TH Tiare, Kabws édidaxOnTE, mepircer-
é

3 Saka hs 5) /
OVTES €V auTy Ey EVUXKANLT TILA.

errotxodopovpevor| ‘being built up,
as in 1 Cor. iii. 1o—14. After this
verb we might have expected én’
atr@ or én adrov (1 Cor. iii. 12)
rather than ¢€y avro; but in this
and the companion epistle Christ is
represented rather as the binding
element than as the foundation of the
building: e.g. Ephes. ii. 20 ézokodo-
pnbevres eri te Oepehio Tov aTooTodavy
kal mpodyntay, dvros adxpoyavialov
avtov Xpiotov “Incov, év © raca [7]
oixodop7 avéer eis vady Gytov ev Kupia,
€v @ kal vpeis ovvoixodopeiobe. The
éri in éroxodoeiy does not neces-
sarily refer to the original foundation,
but may point to the continued pro-
gress of the building by successive
layers, as e.g. [Aristot.] Rhet. ad Alex,
4 (p. 1426) emotxodopodvra rb erepov as
émt ro €repov avfew. Hence ézorko-
Souety is frequently used absolutely,
‘to build up’ (e.g. Jude 20, Polyb.
iii, 27.4), as here. The repetition of
ev avr@ emphasizes the main idea of
the passage, and indeed of the whole
epistle.

ti twiore.]| ‘by your faith, the
dative of the instrument; comp. Heb.
xiii, 9 kadov yap xapite BeBacotcba
tiv kapdiav. Faith is, as it were, the
cement of the building: comp. Clem.
Rom. 22 ratra mavra BeBacot 7 ev
XpioT@ tiotis.

KaOas €diddyOnre] i.e. ‘remaining
true to the lessons which you re-
ceived from Epaphras, and not led
astray byany later pretenders’; comp.
i. 6,7 év GdnOcia, xabds éudbere aro
’Eragpa.

€v avrp x.t.’.] The same ending
occurs in iv. 2. Thanksgiving is the
end of all human conduct, whether
exhibited in words or in works. For
the stress laid on thanksgiving in St
Paul’s epistles generally, see the note

COL.

on Phil. iv. 6. The words edydpieros,
evxapioreiv, evxapioria, occur in St
Paul’s writings alone of the Apostolic
epistles. In this epistle especially
the duty of thanksgiving assumes a,
peculiar prominence by being made
a refrain, as here and in iii. 15, 17,
iv. 2: see also i. 12.

8—15. ‘Be on your guard; do not
suffer yourselves to fall a prey to
certain persons who would lead you
captive by a hollow and deceitful
system, which they call philosophy.
They substitute the traditions of men
for the truth of God. They enforce
an elementary discipline of mundane
ordinances fit only for children. Theirs
is not the Gospel of Christ. In Christ
the entire fulness of the Godhead
abides for ever, having united itself
with man by taking a human body.
And so in Him—not in any inferior
mediators—ye have your life, your
being, for ye are filled from His
fulness. He, I say, is the Head over
all spiritual beings—call them prin-
cipalities or powers or what you will.
In Him too ye have the true circum-
cision—the circumcision which is not
made with hands but wrought by
the Spirit—the circumcision which
divests not of a part only but of the
whole carnal body—the circumcision
which is not of Moses but of Christ.
This cireumcision ye have, because ye
were buried with Christ to your old
selves beneath the baptismal waters,
and were raised with Him from those
same waters to a new and regenerate
life, through your faith in the power-
ful working of God who raised Him
from the dead. Yes, you—you Gen-
tiles who before were dead, when ye
walked in your transgressions and in
theuncircumcision of your unchastened
carnal heathen heart—even you did

12

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Buea

, A i € lon of € a ~ VV
®BAeweTe py Tis Uuas Eorat 0 avAaywyuy ola

8. py Tis €orae Uuas.

God quicken into life together with

Christ; then and there freely for--
giving all of us—Jews and Gentiles -

alike—all our transgressions ; then and
there cancelling the bond which stood
valid against us (for it bore our own
signature), the bond which engaged us
to fulfil all the law of ordinances, which
was our stern pitiless tyrant. Aye,
this very bond hath Christ put out
of sight for ever, nailing it to His
cross and rending it with His body
and killing it in His death. Taking
upon Him our human nature, He
stripped off and cast aside all the
powers of evil which clung to it like a
poisonous garment. Asa mighty con-
queror He displayed these His fallen
enemies to an astonished world, lead-
ing them in triumph on His cross.’

8. Bdémere x.7.A.] The form of the
sentence is a measure ofthe imminence
of the peril. The usual construction
with Bdcrew pi) is a conjunctive; e.g.
in Luke xxi. 8 BXérere py) wAavnOire.
Here the substitution of an indicative
shows that the danger is real; comp.
Heb. iii. 12 BAémere pnmore ora ey
Tit Vay Kapdia Tovnpa dmotias. For
an example of py with a future indi-
cative sec Mark xiv. 2 pymore €orat
OdpvBo0s; and comp. Winer § lvi. p.
631 sq.

tis] This indefinite ris is frequently
used by St Paul, when speaking of
opponents whom he knows well
enough but does not care to name:
see the note on Gal. i. 7. Comp. Ign.
Smyrn. 5 dv TLves ayvoovytes apvovy-
Tat...7d O€ dvopnara avTor, dvTa amtoTa,
ovK €O0&é pot eyyparpat.

ovraywyarv| ‘makes you his prey,
carries you off body and soul” The
word appears not to occur before St
Paul, nor after him, independently of
this passage, tilla late date: e.g. Heliod.
‘ Aeth. X. 35 otrés éorw 6 thy éudy Ov-
yarépa ovraywyjoas. .In Tatian ad
Graec, 22 vpeis O€ vd TOUTMY OVAGYo-

yetoOe it seems to be a reminiscence
of St Paul. Its full and proper mean-
ing, as appears from the passages
quoted, is not ‘to despoil, but ‘to
carry off as spoil, in accordance with
the analogous compounds, dovAayo-
yeiv, cxevaywyeiv. So too the closely
allied word Aadupaywyeity in Plut.
ior. p. 5 modepos yap ov Aapupaywyet
cpetny, Vit. Galb. 5 ra pev Tadaror,
Oray vroxeiplor yevorTat, Aadupaywyr-
ceoGa. The Colossians had been res-
cued from the bondage of darkness ;
they had been transferred to the
kingdom of light; they had been
settled there as free citizens (i. 12,
13); and now there was danger that
they should fall into a state worse
than their former slavery, that they
should be carried off as so much
booty. Comp. 2 Tim. ili. 6 alyyato-
ritovres yuvakapia.

For the construction gorat 6 ovAa-
yoyar see the notes on Gal. i. 7, iii. 21.
The former passage is a close parallel
to the words here, ed py rivés elaw of
Tapagoovres vas K.t.A. The expres-
sion o cvdaywyey gives a directness
and individuality to the reference,
which would have been wanting to the
more natural construction 6s ovAayo-
ynoet. |

dca ths Pidocopias x.r.d.] ‘through
his philosophy which ts an empty de-
ceil” The absence of both preposition
and article in the second clause shows
that Kevijs darns describes and quali-
fies dudkocodias. Clement therefore
(Strom. vi. 8, p. 771) had a right to
contend that St Paul does not here
condemn ‘philosophy’ absolutely. The
girocopia kal kev dmarn of this pas-
sage corresponds to the Wevdavupos
yroors of 1 Tim. vi. 20.

But though ‘philosophy’ is not
condemned, it is disparaged by the
connexion in which it is placed. St
Chrysostom’s comment is not altoge-
ther wrong, émed) Soxet cepviy eivat 75

Nom. 39, I. p. 612).

IL. 8]

~~ : \ o -
Tis itoropias Kal KEVIS

Tis pitocodias, mpocébnke Kal KEvAs
ararns. The term was doubtless used by
the false teachers themselves to de-
scribe theirsystem. Though essentially
Greek as a name and as an idea, it
had found its way into Jewish circles.
Philo speaks of the Hebrew religion
and Mosaic law as 7 marptos ditoco-
dia (Leg. ad Gai. 23, u. p. 568, de
Somn, ii. 18, 1. p. 675) or 7% "Iovdatxy)
dirogodia (Leg. ad Gai. 33, 1. p. 532)
or 7) kara Mwvony pirocodia (de Mui.
The system of
the Essenes, the probable progenitors
of the false teachers at Colossz, he
describes as 7 Siva mepiepyeias “EXAn-
vikov dvopatrav dirocopia (Omn. prod:
fib. 13, 1. p. 459). So too Josephus
speaks of the three Jewish sects as
tpeis biroco@ia(Ant. xviii. 1. 2, comp.
B.J. ii. 8. 2). It should be remem-
bered also, that in this later age,
owing to Roman influence, the term
was used to describe practical not less
than speculative systems, so that it
would cover the ascetic life as well as
the mystic theosophy of these Colos-
sian heretics. Hence the Apostle is
here flinging back at these false teach-
érs a favourite term of theirown, ‘their
vaunted philosophy, which is hollow
and misleading.’

' The word indeed could claim a truly
noble origin; for it is said to have
arisen out of the humility of Py-

-thagoras, who called himself ‘a lover

of wisdom, pydéva yap eivat codoy
dvOpwrov dX’ 7 Ceov (Diog. Laert.
Procem. § 12; comp. Cic. Tuse. v. 3).
In such a sense the term would en-
tirely accord with the spirit and teach-
ing of St Paul; for it bore testimony
to the insufficiency of the human in-
tellect and the need of a revelation.
But in his age it had come to be asso-
ciated generally with the idea of subtle
dialectics and profitless speculation ;
while in this particular instance it was
combined with a mystic cosmogony
and angelology which contributed a

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

179
’ , \ \ a
ANWATYS, KATA. THY. TAapa-

fresh element of danger. As con-
trasted with the power and fulness
and certainty of revelation, all such
philosophy was ‘foolishness’ (1 Cor.
i.20). Itis worth observing that this
word, which to the Greeks denoted
the highest effort of the intellect, oc-
curs here alone in St Paul, just as he
uses dpern, which was their term to
express the highest moral excellence,
in a single passage only (Phil. iv. 8;
see the note there), The reason is
much the same in both cases. The
Gospel had deposed the terms as
inadequate to the higher standard,
waether of knowledge or of practice,
which it had introduced.

On the attitude of the fathers to-
wards philosophy, while philosophy
was a living thing, see Smith’s Dze-
tionary of the Bible s.v. Clement,
who was followed in the main by the
earlier Alexandrine fathers, regards:
Greek philosophy not only as a pre-
liminary training (sporaideia) for the
Gospel, but even as in some sense 2
covenant (d:adyKnn) given by God to the
Greeks (Strom. i. 5, p.331, Vi. 5, p. 761,
ib. § 8, p. 771 8q.). Others, who were
the great majority and of whom Ter-
tullian may be taken as an extreme
type, set their faces directly against
it, seeing in it only the parent of all
heretical teaching: e.g. de Anim.2, 3,
Apol. 46, 47. In the first passage,
referring to this text, he says, ‘ Ab
apostolo jam tune philosophia con-.
cussio veritatis providebatur’; in the
second he asks, ‘Quid simile philo-
sophus et Christianus?’ St Paul’s
speech at Athens, on the only oc-

- easion when he is known to have

been brought into direct personal
contact with Greek philosophers (Acts
xvii. 18), shows that his sympathies
would have been at. least. as much
with Clement’s representations as with
Tertullian’s.

xara x«.7.A.] The false teaching is
described. (1) As regards its source—

I2-—-2

180 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[IL. 8

led ? A \ ~ ~ /
Soo Tav avOpwrwy, KaTa Ta GTOLYELA TOV KOON,

‘the tradition of men’; (2) As regards
its subject matter—‘ the rudiments of
the world?

THY mapadoow x.t.A.| Other systems,
as for instance the ceremonial mishna
of the Pharisees, might fitly be de-
scribed in this way (Matt, xv. 2 8q.,
Mark vii. 3 sq.): but such a descrip-
tion was peculiarly appropriate to a
mystic theosophy like this of the Co-
lossian false teachers. The teaching
might be oral or written, but it was
essentially esoteric, essentially tradi-
tional. It could not appeal to sacred
books which had been before all the
world for centuries. The LEssenes,
the immediate spiritual progenitors
of these Colossian heretics, distinct-
ly claimed to possess such a source
of knowledge, which they carefully
guarded from divulgence; B. J. ii. 8.7
OvyTNpHTEL Opolws TATE THS alpeaews
avt@yv BiBdia Kai Ta TOY dyyéAwV ovO-
para (see above pp. 89, 90 8q., 95).
The various Gnostic sects, their direct
or collateral spiritual descendants,
almost without exception traced their
doctrines to a similar source: e.g.
Hippol. Haer.v. 7 a dynot rapade do-
kKévat Mapiapyy tov “IdkwBov rod Kv-
plov Tov ddeAgoyr, Vii. 20 paciv eipnkévat
MarOiay avrois Aoyous amoxpidous ovs
Hkovoe Tapa TOU cwTHpos, Clem. Alex.
Strom. vii. 17 (p. 898) xaOdrep 6 Baot-
Aeldns, Kav TAavkiay émiypapyta dida-
gkadovy, ws avxovowy avrol, Tov Ilérpov
Eppnvea’ waavtws dé Kal Ovadevrivoy
Gcoda Siaknkoévar Pépovow, yvepipos
d€ ovros éyeydver Tlavdov. So too a
later mystic theology of the Jews,
which had many affinities with the
teaching of the Christianized Essenes
at Colossee, was self-designated Kab-
bala or ‘tradition, professing to have
been handed down orally from the
patriarchs. See the note on dmoxpuydo.,
ii. 3.

Ta ototxeial ‘the rudiments, the
elementary teaching’; comp. ver. 20.
The same phrase occurs again Gal. iv.

3 (comp. ver. 9). As orovyeia signifies
primarily ‘the letters of the alphabet,’
so as a secondary meaning it denotes
‘rudimentary instruction’ Accord-
ingly it is correctly interpreted by
Clement Strom. vi. 8 (p.771)IadXos ...
ovK €re mradwdpopetv a&iot emt tv “EX-
Anuikny pirocodiay, aororxeia Tov Ko-
opov TavTnY aGdANnyopay, TToLXELwTLKNY
Tia ovoav. (i.e. elementary) kal mpo-
madelay THs dAnGeias (comp. 70. vi. 15,
p. 799), and by Tertullian adv. Mare.
v. 19 ‘secundum elementa mundi, non
secundum caelum et terram dicens,
sed secundum litteras seculares.” A
large number of the fathers however
explained the expression to refer to
the heavenly bodies (called crotxeia),
as marking the seasons, so that the
observance of ‘festivals and new-
moons and sabbaths’ was a sort of
bondage to them. It would appear
from Tertullian’s language that Mar-
cion also had so interpreted the
words. On this false interpretation
see the note on Gal. iv. 3. It is quite
out of place here: for (1) The context
suggests some mode of instruction,
e.g. thy mapadoow rav cvOpereay here,
and SoypariferOe in ver. 20; (2) The
keeping of days and seasons is quite
subordinate to other external ob-
servances. The rite of circumcision
(ver. 11), and the distinction of meats
(ver. 21), respectively, are placed in
close and immediate connexion with
Ta oToLxela Tov Koopov in the two
places where it occurs, whereas the
observance of days and seasons (ver. 16)
stands apart from either.

rou koopou] ‘of the world, that is,
‘belonging to the sphere of material
and external things.’ See the notes
on Gal. iv. 3; V1. 14.

‘In Christ,’ so the Apostle seems
to say, ‘you have attained the liberty
and the intelligence of manhood; do
not submit yourselves again to a rudi-
mentary discipline fit only for chil-
dren (ra oroxyeia). In Christ you

Se

IT. 9, 10]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

ISI

\ > \ ee 9 9 9 o ~ an 4
Kat ov Kata Xpiorov" %OTL EV AUTH KaTOLKEL TAY TO
, load 4 bite \ x fie
TAnpwWUa THS Geotntos cwpatiKws, *Kal EOTE Ev AUTH

have been exalted into the sphere of
the Spirit: do not plunge yourselves
again into the atmosphere of material
and sensuous things (rod xkécpov).’

ov Kara. Xpicrov] ‘ not after Christ.’
This expression is wide in itself, and
should be interpreted so as to supply
the negative to both the preceding
clauses; ‘ Christ is neither the author
nor the substance of their teaching:
not the author, for they listen to hu-
man traditions (kara rv mapddocw
tov avOperev); not the substance, for
they replace Him by formal ordinances
(kara Ta oToLxeia TOU KOgpov) and by
angelic mediators.’

9 sq. In explaining the true doc-

trine which is ‘after Christ, St Paul

condemns the two false principles,
which lay at the root of this heretical
teaching; (1) The theological error of
substituting inferior and created be-
ings, angelic mediators, for the divine
Head Himself (vv. 9, 10); and (2) The
practical error of insisting upon ritual
and ascetic observances as the foun-
dation. of their moral teaching (vv. II
—14). Their theological speculations
and their ethical code alike were at
fault. On the intimate connexion be-
tween these two errors, as springing
out of a common root, the Gnostic
dualism of these false teachers, see
the introduction, pp. 33 sq., 79, 87,
114 sq.

drt x.t.A.] The Apostle justifies the
foregoing charge that this doctrine
was not xara Xpiorov; ‘In Christ
dwells the whole pleroma, the entire
fulness of the Godhead, whereas they
represent it to you as dispersed among
several spiritual agencies. Christ is
the one fountain-head of all spiritual
life, whereas they teach you to seek it
in communion with inferior creatures.’
The same truths have been stated. be-
fore (i. 14.8q.) more generally, and they
are now restated, with direct and im-

mediate reference to the heretical
teaching.

cato.kei| ‘has its fixed abode? On
the force of this compound in relation
to the false teaching, see the note on
i, 19.

way To TANpopal ‘all the plenitude,’
‘the totality of the divine powers and
attributes.’ On this theological term
see i. 19, and the detached note at the
end of the epistle.

ths Oedrntos] ‘of the Godhead.’
‘Non modo divinae virtutes, sed ipsa
divina natura,” writes Bengel. For
the difference between Georns ‘ deitas,’
the essence, and Gerns ‘ divinitas,’
the quality, see Trench NV. 7. Syn.
§ ii p. 6. The different force of
the two words may be seen by a
comparison of two passages in Plu-
tarch, Mor. p. 857 A waow Aiyvrrtios
Oevornra modAny Kat Sixacocvyny pap-
tupnoas (where it means a divine
inspiration or faculty, and where no
one would have used @edrnra), and
Mor. 415 0 ék Sé jpder eis Saipovas ai
BeArioves yruxal tiv peraBodrnyv AapBa-
vovow, €k dé Satpovwy oAlyat pev Ere
xpovm modA@ Ov adperyjs Kkabapbeioar
mavramract Oeornros peréoyov (where
Gevornros would be quite out of place,
because all daizoves without exception
were Ocio, though they only became
6eot in rare instances and after long
probation and discipline). In the
New Testament the one word occurs
here alone, the other in Rom. i. 20
alone. So also 76 Oeiov, a very favour-
ite expression in Greek philosophy, is
found once only, in Acts xvii. 29, where
it is used. with singular propriety; for
the Apostle is there meeting the hea-
then philosophers on their own ground
and arguing with them in their own
language. Hlsewhere he instinctively
avoids a term which tends to obscure
the idea of a personal God. In the
Latin versions, owing to the poverty of

182

id J ¢e
TENANOWMEVOL, OS ETT 1

the language, both @edrys and Gevrns
are translated by the same term divi-
nitas; but this was felt to be inade-
quate, and the word deitas was coined
ut a later date to represent Oedrns:
August. de Civ. Dei vii. § 1, VIL. p. 162
(quoted in Trench) ‘Hane divinitatem
vel, ut sic dixerim, detiatem: nam et
hoc verbo uti jam nostros non piget,
ut de Graeco expressius transferant id
quod illi dedrnra appellant ete.’

. copatixos| ‘bodily-wise, ‘corpo-
really, i.e. ‘assuming a bodily form,
becoming incarnate.” ‘This is an ad-
dition to the previous statement in
i. 19 ev avr@ eddonnoey Trav TO TAY papa
katoukjoa. The indwelling of the ple-
roma refers to the MWternal Word, and
not to the Incarnate Christ: but cw-
parines is added to show that the
Word, in whom the pleroma thus had
its abode from all eternity, crowned
His work by the Incarnation. Thus
while the main statement karocket Gp
TO TAnpopa Tis Oedrntos Of St Paul
corresponds to the opening sentence
6 Noyos Hv mpos TOY Cedv Kal eds iv 6
Aoyos of St John, the subdsidiary ad-
verb owpatines of St Paul has its
counterpart in the additional state-
ment kat 6 Aoyos cdpE eyévero of St
John. <All other meanings which have
been assigned to caparikés here, as
‘wholly’ (Hieron. in Zs. xi. I sq., IV.
p. 156, ‘nequaquam per partes, ut in
ceteris sanctis’), or ‘really’ (Aug. Zpist.
exlix, 11. p. 513 ‘Ideo corporaliter dixit,
quia illi umbratiliter seducebant’), or
‘essentially’ (Hilar. de Trin. viii. 54,
HI. p. 252 ‘ Dei ex Deo significat veri-
tatem etc.,’ Cyril. Alex. in Theodoret.
Op. V. p. 34 TouTéori, ov oXETIKaS,
Isid. Pelus. Hp. iv. 166 dytt tov ovot-
és), are unsupported by usage. Nor
again can the body be understood of
anything else but Christ’s human body ;
as for instance of the created World
(Theod. Mops. in Rab. Op. vi. p. 522)
or of the Church (Anon. in Chrysost. ad
loc.). According to these two last inter-.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[If. 10

Kepary TaTNS Goyvys Kat

pretations ro mAjp@pa tis Oedrnros is
taken to mean the Universe (‘ univer-
sam naturam repletam ab eo’) and the
Church (rijy ékxAnoiay menAnpopérny
vivo Tis OedTHTOs avTOv, See Hphes. i. 23)
respectively, because either of these
may be said to reside in Him, as the
source of its life, and to stand to Him
in the relation of the body to the
head (cwparixds). But these forced
interpretations have nothing to re-
commend them.

St Pauls language is carefully
guarded. He does not say ev cepmari,
for the Godhead cannot be confined
to any limits of space; nor cwparoe:-
das, for this might suggest the un-
reality of Christ’s human body; but
caparixes, ‘in bodily wise, ‘with a
bodily manifestation” The relation of
coparixas to the clause which it quali-
fies will vary with the circumstances,
e.g. Plut. dfor. p. 424 5 ro pécov
ov TomiKas GAA TopaTixnds éyer Oat,
i.e. ‘ratione corporis habita,’ Athan.:
Lup. Fid. 4 (i. p. 81) coparixds eis
Tov ‘Incovv yéypamrat, i.e. ‘secundum
corpus, Ptolem. in Epiphan. Haer.
xxxili, 5 card péev ro dawdpevov kal
Goparikas extedeia Oar avypebn, Orig. c.
Cels. ii. 69 ahavy yeveobar coparikes,
ib. Vi. 68 Kai Topatikds ye Nadovpevos,
Macar. Magn. iii. 14 coparixds yapi-
Cew Tay pabnrav.

10. kal eare ev ai’ta| ‘and ye are
in Him, where éecré should be sepa-

’ rated from the following wemAnpape-

vor; comp. John xvii. 21, Acts xvii. 28.
True life consists in union with Him,
and not in dependence on any inferior
being ; comp. ver. 19 ov Kparov re
cecbadny, €& ov K.T.A.

memAnpopevor| ‘being fulfilled, with
a direct reference to the preceding
aAnpopa; *‘ Your fulness comes from
His fulness; His wAnjpopa is trans-
fused into you by virtue of your in-
corporation in Him’ So too John
i, 16 &€k tov mwAnp@paros avrod. jpeis
mavres e\aBopey, Ephes. iii. '9 va mAy-

MOD eS ae

IL. 13]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

183

3 / Gs bh ak e \ / : ” > as
efove tas €V w Kat mepeTynOnTe TEALTOMY anveloo

pobre els way TO TAYP@pa TOV Ceod,
iv. 13 eis perpov nAtkias Tov wAnpdua-

Tos tod Xpicrod, comp. Ign. Ephes.

init. 77 evAoynuern ev peyeGer Oceod
marpos mAnpopart. Hence also the

Church, as ideally regarded, is called

the wAjpepa of Christ, because all His

graces and energies are communicated.

to her; Ephes. i. 23 qris €oriy ro copa
avTov, TO TWANPwp_a TOU Ta TayTa Ev TA-
ow mAnpoupevov.

és] For the various reading 6 see
the detached note. It was perhaps a
correction made on the false suppo-
sition that év ai’ré referred to the
mAjpopa. At all events it must be re-
garded as an impossible reading; for
the image would be altogether con-

fused and lost, if the mAjpaya were

represented as the head. And again
7) kecbadz is persistently said elsewhere
of Christ; i. 18, ii. 19, Ephes. i. 22,
iv. 15, v. 23. Hilary de Trin. ix. 8
(11. p. 264) explains the 6 as referring
to the whole sentence 16 eiva: év avrg
memAnpopevovs, but this also is an in-
conceivable sense. Again it has been
suggested that 6 eorw (like rovréorw)
may be taken as equivalent to scilicet
(comp. Clem. Hom. viii. 22); but this
would require 77 xedad7, even if it
were otherwise admissible here.

7 Kearny | The image expresses much
more than the idea of sovereignty: the
head is also the centre of vital force,
the source of all energy and life; see
the note on ver. 19.

- waons apxis Kt.A.] Sof every prin-
cipality and power, and therefore.
of those angelic beings whom the
false teachers adopted as mediators,
thus transferring to the inferior mem-
bers the allegiance due to the Head:
comp. ver. 18 sq. For dpyijs cal éov-
cias, see the note on i. 16.

11. The previous verses have dealt
with the theological tenets of the false

_ teachers. The Apostle now turns to
their practical errors; ‘You do not.
need the circumcision of the flesh ;.

for you have received the circumcision
of the heart. The distinguishing fea-
tures of this higher circumcision are
threefold. (1) It is not external but.
inward, not made with hands but
wrought by the Spirit. (2) It divests
not of a part only of the flesh, but of
the whole body of carnal affections..
(3) It is the circumcision not of
Moses or of the patriarchs, but of
Christ.’ Thus it is distinguished, as
regards jirst its character, secondly
its extent, and thirdly its author.

meptetunOnre| Themoment at which
this is conceived as taking place is
defined by the other aorists, cvvra-
hévres, ovvnyépOnre, etc., as the time
of their baptism, when they ‘put on
Christ.’

dxetporrouyre | i.e. ‘immaterial,’ ‘spi-
ritual,” as Mark xiv. 58, 2 Cor. v. 1..
So xeporoinros, which is used in the
N. T. of material temples and their
furniture (Acts vii. 48, xvii. 24, Heb.
ix. II, 24,comp. Mark JZ. c.), and of the
material circumcision (Hphes. ii. 11
THs Aeyomevns meptrouns ev cwapKl yeu
pomoiujrov). In the LXX yxewporoinra
occurs exclusively as a rendering of
idols (D°?°O8, e.g. Lev. xxvi. 1, Is. ii,
18, etc.), false gods (O'I2N8 Is. xxi. 9,
where perhaps they read pdx), or
images (O31 Lev. xxvi. 30), except in
one passage, Is. xvi. 12, where it is
applied to an idol’s sanctuary. Owing
to this association of the word the
application which we find in the New
Testament would sound much more
depreciatory to Jewish ears than it
does to our own; e.g. év yerpomounrois
karotxet in St Stephen’s speech, where.
the force is ‘broken in the received
text by the interpolation of vaois.

For illustrations of the typical sig-
nificance of circumcision, as a symbol.
of purity, see the note on Phil. iii. 3. .

€v tT) k.7.A.| The words are chosen to
express the compleieness of the spiri-
tual change. (1) Itis not an éxdvots.
nor an amddvois, but. an dwréxdvocs..

184

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

POPS &-

lanl / “A , o ,
TOUTW, EV TH AmEKdVTEL TOV GDwWUATOS THS TapKos,
PY lan a a Cos) Uf an >
év TH TWepitToun Tov Xpiotov, “ovvrapevtes avtw év

The word dréxdvors is extremely rare,
and no earlier instances of it are pro-
duced; see the note on ver. 15 dzexdv-
cdapevos. (2) Itis not a single mem-
ber but the whole body, which is thus
cast aside; see the next note. Thus
the idea of completeness is brought
out both in the energy of the action
and in the extent of its operation, as
in iii, 9 dmwexdvoduevo. Toy madatoy
avOporTor

Tov o@paros K.T.A.| ‘the whole body
which consists of the flesh, i.e. ‘ the
body with all its corrupt and carnal
affections’; as iii. 5 vexpwoare ovy
Ta péAn. For illustrations of the
expression see Rom. vi. 6 iva xarap-
yn07 TO oda THs duaprias, Vil. 24 Tov
o@patos tod Oavarov rovrov, Phil. iii.
21 TO Gépa THs TaTEewadoews Nar.
Thus ro oadpa tis capkds here means
“the fleshly body’ and not ‘the entire
mass of the flesh’; but the contrast
between the whole and the part still
remains. In i, 22 the same expression
TO cepa THs oapkos occurs, but with a
different emphasis and meaning: see
the note there.

The words rév duapriar, inserted be-
tween tov caparos and tis capkos in
the received text, are clearly a gloss,
and must be omitted with the vast
majority of ancient anthorities.

12. Baptism is the grave of the
old man, and the birth of the new.
As he sinks beneath the baptismal
waters, the believer buries there all
his corrupt affections and past sins;
as he emerges thence, he rises re-
generate, quickened to new hopes
and a new life. This it is, because
it is not only the crowning act of his
own faith but also the seal of God’s
adoption and the earnest of God’s
Spirit. Thus baptism is an image of
his participation both in the death and
in the resurrection of Christ. See
Apost. Const. ili. 17 9 Katadvois To

cuvarobaveiv, 7 dvadvots TO ouvavacTh-
va. For this twofold image, as it
presents itself to St Paul, see es-
pecially Rom. vi. 3 sq.

ev t@ Banriopa| ‘in the act of
baptism. <A distinction seems to be
observed elsewhere in the New Tes-
tament between Bamricya ‘baptism’
properly so called, and Bamriopés
‘lustration’ or ‘washing’ of divers
kinds, e.g. of vessels (Mark vii. 4, [8,]
Heb. ix. 10), Even Heb. vi. 2 Bar-
ticpav diaxjs, Which at first sight
might seem to be an exception to this
rule, is perhaps not really so (Bleek
ad loc.) Here however, where the
various readings Barricué and Ban-
tigware appear in competition, the
preference ought probably to be
given to Bamricu@ as being highly
supported in itself and as the less
usual word in this sense. There is
no @ priori reason why St Paul
should not have used Barricpos with
this meaning, for it is so found in Jo-
Sephus Ant. xviii. 5.2 Bamricya ovr-
.evat (of John the Baptist). Doubtless
the form Bdmrvcpa was more appro-
priate to describe the one final and
complete act of Christian baptism,
and it very soon obtained exclusive
possession of the ground in Greek ;
but in St Paul’s age the other form
Barricnos may not yet have been
banished. In the Latin Version bap-
tisma and baptismus are used indis-
criminately: and this is the case also
with the Latin fathers. The substan-
tive ‘baptism’ occurs so rarely in any
sense in St Paul (only Rom. vi. 4, Eph.
iv. 5, besides this passage), or indeed
elsewhere in the N. T. of Christian
baptism (only in 1 Pet. iii. 21), that
we have not sufficient data for a
sound induction, So far as the two
words have any inherent difference of
meaning, Bamrricpos denotes rather the
act in process and Bamrioyua the result.

TESS

PSS STR ee A

II. 12]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 185

~ *& , A m y
To Particne, év @ Kal cuvnyepOnTeE Ola THS TWITTEWS
ba la on ~ 4 > \ > ~
Tis évepyetas TOU Oeov Tov eyelpavTos avTOV EK [rev |

12, 7G Bamrliopatt

év | ie. Barriop@. Others would
understand Xpior@ for the sake of
the parallelism with ver. 11 é& @
kal...ev @ kai. But this parallelism is
not suggested by the sense: while on
the other hand there is obviously a
very close connexion between ova-
gevres and aumyéepOnre as the two
complementary aspects of baptism ;
comp. Rom. vi. 4 sq. cvverapnpev
avt@ Sia tov Banticparos iva w@orep
nyépOn Xpiotos...ovTws Kal npeis...€
yap ovppurot yeyovapev TH Oporwpate
tov Oavarov avrov, adda kal THs
dvactagews éoopneda, 2 Tim, ii. IL
ei yap cvvareOdvopey, Kal cvygn-
copev. In fact the idea of Xpior@
must be reserved for ouvvnyépOnre
where it is wanted, ‘ye were raised
together with Him,

dia tis miorews x.t.A.] ‘through
your faith in the operation, évepyeias
being the objective genitive. So St
Chrysostom, miorews ddov e€otiv’ émt-
atevoate Ore Suvaras 0 Oeds €yeipar,
Kal ovtas nyepOnte. Only by a belief
in the resurrection are the benefits of
the resurrection obtained, because
only so are its moral effects produced.
Hence St Paul prays that he may
‘know the power of Christ’s resurrec-
tion’ (Phil. iii.. 10). Hence too he
makes this the cardinal article in the
Christian’s creed, ‘ If thou...believest
in thy heart that God raised Him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved’
(Rom. x. 9). For the influence of
Christ’s resurrection on the moral and
spiritual being, see the note on Phil.
Le. Others take ris evepyeias as the
subjective genitive, ‘faith which comes
from the operation etc., arguing from
a mistaken interpretation of the par-
allel passage Ephes. i. 19 (where xara
tiv evépyecav Should be connected, not
with rovs miorevovras, but with ri rd

vmepBadrov péyeOos k.t.d.). The former
explanation however yields a better
sense, and the genitive after miors
far more commonly describes the ob-
ject than the source of the faith, e.g.
Rom. iii, 22, 26, Gal. iii. 22, Ephes. iii.
12, Phil. i. 27, iii. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 13.

13. In the sentence which follows
it seems necessary to assumeachange .
of subject. There can be little doubt
that 6 Gcds is the nominative to ovr-
e(woroinoev: for (1) The parallel pas-
sage Hphes. ii. 4,5 directly suggests
this. (2) This is uniformly St Paul’s
mode of speaking elsewhere. It is
always God who éyeipe, cuveyeipen,
Cworotet, cvvCworotet, etc., with or in
or through Christ. (3) Though it might
be possible to assign ctv a’ré to the
subject of cvve{woroinger (see the note
on i. 20), yetareference to some other
person is more natural. These reasons
seem to decide the subject of cuve(o-
oroingev. But at the same time it
appears quite impossible to continue
the same subject, 6 Gcdés, to the end of
the sentence. No grammatical mean-
ing can be assigned to daexducdpevos,
by which it could be understood of
God the Father. We must suppose
therefore that a new subject, o Xpic-
ros, is introduced meanwhile, either
with jpxey or with drexducduevos it-
self ; and of the two the former seems
the easier point of transition. Fora
similar instance of abrupt transition,
which is the more natural owing to the
intimate connexion of the work of the
Son with the work of the Father, see
e.g. i. 17 sq.

kat jpas| i.e. ‘you Gentiles.” This
will appear from a study of the
parallel passages iii. 7,8, Ephes. i. 13,
BHOiBae; I-13) 17; '22, ii. 2, -ive 17's
see the notes on Ephes. i, 13, and on-
Ti akpoBvoria just below.

186 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

BS ee

wn 4 ran) A V4 ms 7
vexpwv? “Kal vas vexpous OvTas TOIs TAapaTTOMacLY

\ 4a 9 , la \ e a“ 7
Kal Ti] dKpoBueTia THS TAPKOS UMWY, CUVECWOTOINTEV

Tols TapanT@Opacty K.T.A.| ‘by reason
of your transgressions etc’ The za-
parropara are theactual definite trans-
gressions, while the dxpoBvaria ris
capkos is the impure carnal disposition
which prompts to them. For the da-
tive comp. Ephes. ii. 1, 5, where the
same expression occurs ; see Winer
Gramm. § xxxi. p. 270. On the other
hand in Rom. vi. 11 vexpovds péev tH
apapria, Cavras S¢ rH Oe@, the dative
has a wholly different meaning, as the
context shows. The év of the received
text, though highly supported, is dcubt-
less an interpolation for the sake of
grammatical clearness.

Th dxpoBvotia x.7.A.]| The external,

fact is here mentioned, not for its own
sake but for its symbolical meaning.
The outward uncirecumcision of the
Gentiles is a type of their unchastened
carnal mind. In other words, though
the literal meaning is not excluded,
the spiritual reference is most promi-
nent, as appears from ver. II év T7
amexducet TOU a@paros. Hence Theo-
dore’s comment, dxpoBvatiav (éxade-
acy) TO meptketoOa ere THY Ovntornra.
At the same time the choice of the
expression shows that the Colossian
converts addressed by St Paul were
mainly Gentiles,

cuve(woroinaey] It has been ques-

tioned whether the life here spoken of

should be understood in a spiritual
sense of the regeneration of the moral
being, or in a literal sense of the fu-
ture life of immortality regarded as
conferred on the Christian potentially
now, though only to be realised here-
after. But is not such an issue alto-
gether superfluous ? Is there any rea-
son to think that St Panl would have
separated these two ideas of life? To
him the future glorified life is only
the continuation of the present moral
and spiritual life. The two are the
same in essence, however the accidents

may differ. Moral and spiritual rege-
neration is salvation, is life.

vpas|] The pronoun is repeated for
the sake of emphasis. The omission
in some good copies is doubly ex-
plained ; (1) By the desire to simplify
the grammar; (2) By the wish to re-
lieve the awkwardness of the close
proximity between vas and jyiv. This
latter consideration has led a few
good authorities to substitute nuds for
vpas, and others to substitute viv for
npiv. For instances of these emphatic
repetitions in St Paul see the note on
i. 20 OV adroo.

avy adre| ‘with Christ,’ as in Ephes.
ll. 5 ouve(woroincey TG Xpiorg. On
the inadmissibility of the reading avré
see the note on eis avror i. 20.

xaptoduevos| ‘having forgiven, as
in Luke vii. 42 sq., 2 Cor. ii. 7, 10,
xil. 13, Hphes. iv. 32; see also the note
on iii. 13 below. The idea of sin as a
debt incurred to God (Matt. vi. 12 ra
odeAnpata juay, comp. Luke xi. 4)
underlies this expression, as it does
also the commoner term for pardon,
adeois ‘remission.’ The image is
carried out in the cancelled bond,
ver. 14.

npiv| The person is changed; ‘not
to you Gentiles only, but to us all
alike.” St Paul is eager to claim his
share in the transgression, that he
may claim it also in the forgiveness.
For other examples of the change
from the second to the first person,
see i. 1O—13, ili. 3, 4, Ephes, ii. 2, 3,
13, 14, iv. 31, 32, v. 2 (the correct
reading), 1 Thess. v. 5, where the mo-
tive of the change is similar. See also
Gal. ili. 25, 26, iv. 5, 6, where there is
the converse transition.

14. e&adreiwas] ‘having cancelled’

The word éefarcidew, like Ssaypadew,

signifying ‘to blot out, to erase,’ is
commoniy cpposed to éyypadew ‘to
enter a name, etc”; e.g. Arist.. Pax

“IL 14]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

187

~ 4 o la ~ / A ,
UMaS GUY besisns: Kapioapevos np TAVTA Ta TWApATTW-

Mara,

1181, Lysias c. Nicom. p. 183, Plato
Resp. vi. p. 501 B. More especially is
it so used in reference to an tfem in
an account, e.g. Demosth. c. Aristog.
i. p. 791 é€yypapovrat mavres of opAt-
oxdvovres...efadnrurrat TO OANyA.

To Ka@’ Hav «.r.r.] ‘the bond stand-
ing against us.’ The word yxetpoypa-
cov, which means properly an auto-
graph of any kind, is used almost ex-
clusively for a note of hand, a bond or
obligation, as having the ‘ sign-manual!’
of the debtor or contractor : e.g. Tobit
v. 3 (comp. ix. 5) faxev adr@ rd xetpo-
ypahor, Plut. Mor. p. 829 A rav xetpo-
ypaphev Kxat ovpBodraiov. It is more
common in Latin than in Greek, e.g.
Cic. Fam. vii. 18 ‘ Misi cautionem chi-
rographi mei,’ Juv. Sat. xvi. 41 ‘ De-
bitor aut sumptos pergit non reddere
nummos, Vana supervacui dicens
chirographa ligni’ (comp. xiii. 137).
Hence chirographum, chirographarius,
are frequent terms in the Roman law-
books; see Heumann-Hesse Hand-
lexicon zu den Quellen des romischen
Rechts 8.v. p. 74.

In the case before us the Jewish
people might be said to have signed
the contract when they bound them-
selves by a curse to observe all the
enactments of the law (Deut. xxvii.
14—26; comp. Exod. xxiv. 3); and
the primary reference would be to
them. But yyiv, judy, seem to in-
clude Gentiles as wellas Jews, so that
a wider reference must be given to
the expression. The Sdypara there-
fore, though referring primarily to the
Mosaic ordinances, will include all
forms of positive decrees in which.
moral or social principles are embo-
died or religious duties defined ; and
the ‘bond’ is the moral assent of the
conscience, which (as it were) signs
and seals the obligation. The Gen-

tiles, though ‘not having a law, are a
law to themselves,’ ofrwes évdeikvuvrat

éFaneilas To Kal?’ ypov xXELpoypacov TOIS

TO épyov Tov vopou ypanrov ev Tais
kapdias avTéy, ouvppmaptrvpovons
avray tis cvverdoioews, Rom. ii. 14, 15.
Sce the notes on Gal. ii. 19, iv. 11.
Comp. Orig. Hom. in Gen. xiii. 4 (a1.
p. 96).

- tots Soypacw] ‘consisting in ordi-
nances’: comp. Ephes. ii. 15 rov vopov
Tay, évrohav ev Soypaow. The word
doyza is here used in its proper sense.
of a ‘ decree, ‘ ordinance,’ correspond-
ing to doypyariferOe below, ver. 20.
This is its only sense in the N. T.;
e.g. Luke ii. 1, Acts xvii. 7, of the
emperor’s decrees; Acts xvi. 4 of the
Apostolic ordinances. Here it refers
especially to the Mosaic law, as in
Joseph. Ané. xv. 5. 3 ra ka\Ncora Tov
Soypdreav Kal Ta dowwTaTa Tay év ToIs
vopots, Philo Leg. All. i. 16 (1. p. 54).
duarjpnots Trav dyiov Soypdrayv, 3 Mace.
i. 3 Tey watpiov Soypdrav. Comp.
Tren. Lragnv. 38 (p. 855 Stieren) where,
immediately after a reference to our
text, rois Tay “Iovdaiwy Sdypact mpoo-
épxecOac is Opposed to mvevparikads

Aetroupyetv. In the parallel passage,
Ephes. ii. 15, this is the exclusive

reference; but here (for reasons ex-
plained in the last note) it seems best
to give the term a secondary and
more extensive application.

The dative is perhaps best explained
as governed by the idea of yeypap-
pévoy involved in xetpoypapoy (comp.
Plat. Zp. vii. p. 243 A ra yeypappéva,
Turow); a8 in I Tim. ii. 6 ro papripiov
katpois idiots, Where kxa:pois depends
on an implied pepaprupnpévov. Other-
wise it is taken as closely connected
with xa® nua, ‘the bond which was.
in force against us by reason of the
ordinances’: see Winer § xxxi. p. 273,
A. Buttmann p. 80. Possibly an év
has dropped out of the text before,
tois Sdypaow, Owing to the similar
ending yelpo ee (comp. Ephes.
ii, 15)3 but, if so, the omission must

188

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[II. 14

, ed Ly: Vf ~ \ \ i
Soyuaciv, O HY VrevavTioy yulvy Kal avTo npkev €k

date from the earliest age, since no
existing authorities exhibit any traces
of such a reading; see the note on
ver. 18 & édpaxev, and comp. Phil. ii.
I el Tis omAdyxva.

A wholly different interpretation
however prevails universally among
Greek commentators both here and
in Ephes. ii. 15. They take trois doy-
pac, ev Sdypacty, to mean the ‘ doc-
trines or precepts of the Gospel,’ and
so to describe the instrument by
which the abrogation of the law was
effected. So Chrysostom, Severianus,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theo-
doret, followed by the later commen-
tators Gicumenius and Theophylact.
Strangely enough they do not allude
to the correct interpretation; nor (with,
the exception of the passage ascribed
to Irenzeus which is quoted above)
have I found any distinct traces of it
in any Greek father. The grammati-
cal difficulty would be taken to favour
this interpretation, which moreover
was characteristic of the age when
the battle of creeds was fought. But
it has been universally abandoned by
modern interpreters, as plainly inap-
propriate to the context and also as
severing the substantive doyya here
from the verb doypari¢ewyin ver. 20. The
Latin fathers, who had either decretis
or sententiis in their version, were
saved from this false interpretation ;
e.g. Hilar. de Trin. i. 12 (11. p. 10),
ix. Io (IL p. 265 sq.), Ambros. Apol.
Dat. 13 (1. p. 698), de Fid. iii, 2 (m1.
p. 499), August. de Pecc. Mer. i. 47
(x. p. 26): though they very commonly
took rois Soypacw, é€v dSoypacww, to
refer to the decree of condemnation.
Jerome however on Ephes. ii. 15
(vir. p. 581) follows the Greeks. The
later Christian sense of Soya, mean-
ing ‘ doctrine,’ camefrom its secondary
classical use, where it was applied to
the authoritative and categorical ‘sen-
tences’ of the philosophers: comp.
Just. Mart. Apol. i. 7 (p. 56 D) of ev

"EhAnot Ta avrois dpecra Soyparicavres
€k TavTos TO Evi ovopate Pirocodias
mpocayopevovrat, kaimep Tov Soyparav
évavriov ovrav, Cic. Acad. ii. 9 ‘de
suis decretis quae philosophi vocant
ddypara, Senec. Lpist. xcv. 10 ‘Nulla
ars contemplativa sine decretis suis
est, quae Graeci vocant dogmata, nobis
vel decreta licet adpellare vel scita
vel placita. See the indices to Plu-
tarch, Epictetus, etc., for illustrations
of the use of the term. There is an
approach towards the ecclesiastical
meaning in Ignat. Magn. 13 BeBatw-
Ojjvar €v Trois Soypacw tov Kupiov kai
Tov arocroAwy, Barnab. § 1 tpia ovv
Soypara €oTLy Kvupiov (comp. iS Q, 10).
o nv K.T.A.| ‘which was directly op-
posed tous” The former expression,
To ka@’ nuaov, referred to the validity
of the bond; the present, 6 #v vmevar-
tiov nui, describes its active hostility.
It is quite a mistake to suppose that
the first preposition in dzevavtios
mitigates its force, as in vrodjnAwats,
UToAEVKOS, Viropaivoua, varoonpaivery,
etc. Neither in classical writers nor
in the Lxx has the word any shade of
this meaning. It is very commonly
used, for instance, of things which are
directly antagonistic and mutually
exclusive: e.g. Aristot. de Gen.
et Corr. i. 7 (p. 323) Anpoxpiros...
gyot...rd avTo Kal Gpovov eivat TO TE
mov kat TO macyov...€oikace S€ of
TovTov Toy TpoTov héyovTes VirevayTia

. (i.e. self-contradictory) daiverOar dé-

yew airtov Sé ris evavriodoyias k.T.A.;
[Plato] Alcib. Sec. 138 0 SQ. To pai-
verOa. dpa vrevavtiov cor Soxei TS
dpoveiv; AA. Ilavy peév ovy...139 B SQ.
Kat pny dvo ye vrevarria évi mpdypare
mas av ein; (i.e. how can one thing
have two direct opposites?), where
the whole argument depends on this
sense Of vmevarytios. In compounds
with vo the force of the preposition
will generally be determined by the
meaning of the other element in the
compound; and, as évavrios (évaytt)

II. 15]

~ , > POIs: ~ ~
TOU MeGOU, TPCTHAWOAS AUTO TH TTAVPW’

implies locality, a local sense is commu-
nicated to jad. Thus vmevavrios may
be compared with dmadd\docew, v-
mavray, vravriatew, vmotpexew (Xen.
Cyrop. i. 2. 12 Anatas brodpapsiv ‘ to
hunt down’), Umehavvery (Xen. Anab.
i. 8.15 daeAdoas ws owvayThoat, ‘riding
up’), dpuorava (Polyb. i i, 50 6 uméorn-
Ge THY €avTov vavy dvrimpapov TOLs
mro\eEpiots,. hebrought up’ his own ship).
With this meaning, ‘over against,’
‘close in upon, the preposition does
not weaken but enhance the force of
évavrios, so that the compound will
denote ‘ direct,’ ‘ close, or ‘ persistent
opposition.’

kat avro Apkev K.r.d.] ‘and He, i.e.
Christ, hath taken it away’? There
is a double change in this clause: (1)
The participles (yapurdpevos, efarei-
vas) are replaced by a finite verb.
(2) The aorists (cvveCworoincer, yxa-
pioapevos, e€adreiWvas) are replaced by
a perfect. The substitution of 7pev
for 7jpxev in some copies betrays a
consciousness on the part of the scribes
of the dislocation produced by the
new tense. As a new subject, o
Xpicros, must be introduced some-
where (see the note on ver. 13), the
severance thus created suggests this
as the best point of transition. The
perfect jpxery, ‘He hath removed it,
is suggested by the feeling of relief
and thanksgiving, which rises up in
the Apostle’s mind at this point. For
the strong expression aipeww ex [rod]
péoov, ‘to remove and put out of
sight, comp. Lxx Is. lvii. 2, Epictet.
lii. 3. 15, Plut. Mor. P. 519 D; 80 2
Thess. li. 7 €k pécov yéevnrat.

mpoonr@aas k.7.A.] ‘ The abrogation
was even more emphatic. Not only
was the writing erased, but the do-
cument itself was torn up and cast
aside” By rpoonddécas is meant that
the law of ordinances was nailed to
the cross, rent with Christ’s body,
and destroyed with His death : see
the notes on Gal. vi. 14 dv 0d [rod

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

189

™S @areKOU-

atavpov| éuot Koopos (the world, the
sphere of material ordinances) écrav-
porta kKdy® xdope, where the idea is
the same. It has been supposed that
in some cities the abrogation of a
decree was signified by running a
nail through it and hanging it up in
public. The image would thus gain
force, but there is no distinct evi-
dence of such a custom.

15. amexdvoduevos x.t.A.] This
word appears not to occur at all be-
fore St Paul, and rarely if ever after
his time, except in writers who may
be supposed to have his language be-
fore them; e.g. Hippol. Haer. i, 24
amexOvoduevov TO copa é meptkeiTat.
In Joseph. Ant. vi. 14. 2 dmexdds is
only a variation for perexdis which
seems to be the correct reading. The
word also appears in some texts of
Babrius Fab. xviii. 3, but it is merely
a conjectural emendation. Thus the
occurrence of dmexdveoOa here and in
lii. 9, and of améxdvors above in ver. II,
is remarkable; and the choice of an
unusual, if not a wholly new, word
must have been prompted by the de-
sire to emphasize the completeness of
the action. The force of the double
compound may be inferred from a pas-
sage of Lysias, where the two words
arodverOar and exdverOa: occur toge-
ther; c. Theomn. i. 10 (p. 117) da-
oxov Ooparioy dmodedvcGat 7) Tov xtTa-
vioxoy exdedvoGar. Here however the
sense of dmexdvodyevos is difficult.
The meaning generally assigned to it,
‘having spoiled, stripped of their
arms,’ disregards the middle voice.
St Jerome is chiefly responsible for
this common error of interpretation:
for in place of the Old Latin ‘exuens
se, which was grammatically correct,
he substituted ‘exspolians’ in his re-
vised version. In his interpretation
however he was anticipated by the
commentator Hilary, who read ‘exu-
ens’ for ‘exuens se’ in his text. Dis-
carding this sense, as inconsistent with

190 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

\ \ \
Tauevos Tas apyas Kal

the voice, we have the choice of two
interpretations.

(1) The common interpretation of
the Latin fathers, ‘putting off the
body,’ thus separating dmexdvodpevos
from ras apxds x.7.A. and understand-
ing Tv capka OF TS copa With it; comp.
2 Cor. v. 3 evdvodpevot. So Novat. de
Trin. 16 ‘exutus carnem’; Ambros.
Expos. Luc. v. § 107 (1. p. 1381) ‘ex-
uens se carnem, comp. de Ld. iii.
2 (11. p. 499); Hilar. de Trin. i. 13
(II. p. 10) ‘exutus carnem’ (comp. ix.
10, p. 265), x. 48 (p. 355) ‘spolians
se carne’ (comp. ix. I1,p. 266); Au-
gustin. Epist. 149 (IL p. 513) ‘exuens
se carne,’ etc. This appears to have
been the sense adopted much earlier

ina Docetic work quoted by Hippol.

faer. viii. 10 uy éxeivn €v TS oopare
tpadeioa, drexdvoapevn TO copa Kal
mpoonrAouvaca mpos TO EvAov Kat Optap~

Bevoaooak.t.rA It is so paraphrased

likewise in the Peshito Syriac and the
Gothic. The reading drexduvcapevos
THY GapKa Kat Tas e€ovcias (omitting
tas dpxas kal), found in some an-
cient authorities, must be a corrup-
tion from an earlier text, which had
inserted the gloss rnv odpxa after
amexSvoapevos, While retaining ras
dpxas xai, and which seems to have
been in the hands of some of the La-
tin fathers already quoted. This in-
terpretation has been connected with

a common metaphorical use of dzo-.

dvecOa, signifying ‘to strip’ and so
‘to prepare for a contest’; e.g. Plut.
Mor. 811 E mpos racay amodvopevot
THY ToduTiKnY mpaéwv, Diod. Sic. ii. 29
ért piiocopiay droduvres. ‘The seri-
ous objection to this rendering is, that
it introduces an isolated metaphor
which is not explained or suggested
by anything in the context.

(2) The common interpretation of
the Greek fathers; ‘ having stripped
off and put away the powers of evil,
making drexSvadpevos govern rds ap-
xas «.7.A. So Chrysostom, Severianus,

(II. 15

\ 9% / 3 : 4
Tas éfavoias €éderypari-
Theodore of Mopsucstia, and Theodo-
ret. This also appears to have been
the interpretation of Origen, in Mati.
xii. § 25 (ur. p. 544), 2b. § 40 (p. 560),
in Loan. Vi. $37 (iV; Pp. 155),.70.. x5.
§ 29 (p. 356), though his language is
not explicit, and though his transla-

tors, e.g. 72 Libr. Les. Hom. vii. § 3

(II. p. 413), make him say otherwise.
The meaning then will be as follows.
Christ took upon Himself our human
nature with aillits temptations (Heb. iv.
15). The powers of evil gathered about
Him. Again and again they assailed
Him; but each fresh assault ended

in a new defeat. In the wilderness.

He was tempted by Satan ; but Satan

retired for the time baffled and.

defeated (Luke iv. 13 dmréorn ar
avrov dypt katpov). Through the

voice of His chief disciple the temp-.

tation was renewed, and He was
entreated to deciine His appointed
sufferings and death. Satan was
again driven off (Matt. xvi. 23 dmaye
Grig@ pov, Sarava, okavdadov ef epov :
comp. Matt. vili.31). Then the last
hour came. This was the great crisis
of all, when ‘the power of darkness’
made itself felt (Luke xxii. 53 €€ov-
ola Tov oKOTous ; See above i.13), When

the prince of the world asserted his.

tyranny (Joh. xii, 31 0 dpxov tod
koopov). ‘The final act in the conflict
began with the agony of Gethsemane;
it ended with the cross of Calvary.
The victory was complete. The enemy
of man was defeated. The powers of
evil, which had clung like a Nessus
robe about His humanity, were torn
of and cast aside for ever. And the
victory of mankind is involved in the
victory of Christ. In His cross we
too are divested of the poisonous
clinging garments of temptation and
sin and death; 16 droOéoba rhv
O@yrornra, 82y8 Theodore, jv vmep tis
Kowns apeikey evepyecias, amedvocato
kdkelvav (i.e. Tay dytixepéevav Ovrd-
peswv) THY avOevreiay prep €KexpnvTO

Ii. 15]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

‘IQl

‘ 2 , , > \ 5) ee oe em
cev év rappicia, OptauBevoas avTous ev avTo.

xa@’ jpav.. For the image of the gar-
ments comp. Is. lxiv. 6, but especially
Zech. iii. 1 sq.,‘And he showed me
Joshua the high-priest standing be-
fore the angel of the Lord and Satan
standing at his right hand to resist
him. And the Lord said unto Satan,
The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan...
Now Joshua was clothed with filthy
garments... And He answered and
spake unto those that stood before
Him, saying, Take away the filthy gar-
ments from him. And unto him He
said, Behold, J have caused thine ini-
quity to pass from thee? In this
prophetic passage the image is used
of His type and namesake, the Jesus
of the Restoration, not in his own
person, but as the high-priest and re-
presentative of a guilty but cleansed
and forgiven people, with whom he is
identified. For the metaphor of. direx-
Svoduevos more especially, see Philo
Quod det. pot. ins. 13 (I. p. 199) é¢&ava-
oravres dé Kai Sueperodpevor Tas evréx-
pous avTay mepirdoKkds evuapas € KO v-
oopeOa, where the image in the con-
text is that of a wrestling bout.

This interpretation is grammatical;
it accords with St Paul’s teaching; and
itis commended by the parallel uses of
the substantive in ver. 11 év 7H dmex-
dvcettod cdparostijs capkds, and of the
verb in iii. 9 drexdvodpevor roy madaov
avOpwrov Kt.rA. The dréxduors accom-
plished in uswhen we are baptized into
Hisdeath is a counterpart to the dzéx-
dvots Which He accomplished by His
death. With Him indeed it was only
the temptation, with us it is the sin
as well as temptation; but otherwise
the parallel is complete. In both
cases it is a divestiture of the powers
of evil, a liberation from the dominion
of the flesh. On the other hand the
common explanation ‘ spoiling’ is not
Jess a violation of St Paul’s usage
Gii. 9) than of grammatical rule.

ras apxas x.r.A.] What powers are
especially meant here will appear from

Ephes. vi. 12 mpds tras dpyds, mpos tas
e£ovcias, mpos TOUS KOTpOKpaTopas TOD
OKOTOUS TOUTOV, TPOS TA MVEVMATLKA THS

moyvnpias «.t.r. See the note on i, 16.

ederyparioey] ‘displayed, as a Vic-
tor displays his captives or trophies in

a triumphal procession: Hor. Zpist.

i, 17. 33 ‘ captos ostendere civibus hos-
tes.’ The word is extremely rare;
Matt. 1. 19 wy OéA@v avrny Sevypatioas
(where it ought probably to be read
for the more common word sapadey-

parica), Act. Paul. et Petr. 33 eye

mpos TOV Aaov iva pr povoy ao Tis TOD
, > ‘ ,. ° A A

Zipevos ararns pvywoiv adda xai devy-

patricovow avrov. Nowhere does the

word convey the idea of ‘making an

example’ (wapaderyparioa) but signi-
fies simply ‘to display, publish, pro-
claim.’ In the context of the last
passage we have as the consequence,
Gate mavras tovs evrAaBeis avdpas Bde-
AdtrecIat Sivwva roy payov kat avdootov
avrov kaTayyéAd ety, Le. to proclaim
his impieties. The substantive occurs
on the Rosetta stone J. 30 (Boeckh
C. I. 4697) réy ovyrterehecpevay ra
mpos Tov Sevypatiopoy Ovadopa.

ev mappnoia|‘ boldly,’ not ‘ publicly.
AS rappnaia is ‘unreseryedness, plain-
ness of speech’ (srav-pyaia, its opposite
being dppnaia ‘silence’), so while
applied still to language, it may be

opposed either (1) to ‘fear,’ as John

vii. 13, Acts iv. 29, or (2) to ‘am-
biguity, reserve, Joh. xi. 14, xvi.
25,29; but ‘misgiving, apprehension’
in some form or other seems to be
always the correlative idea. Hence,
when it is transferred from words to
actions, it appears always to retain
the idea of ‘ confidence, boldness’; e.g.
1 Mace. iv. 18 Anere ra oKdAa pera
wappnotas, Test. vit Patr. Rub. 4 ove
eiyov mappnotay arevioa eis mpoowmov
"IaxoB, Jos. Ant. ix. 10. 4m aloxvons
re ToD cuuBeBnKoros Setvod Kal TOV py-
Kér’ avT@ mappnaiay eivat, The idea of
publicity may sometimes be connected
with the word as a secondary notion,

192

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[il. 16

16 Mn) Bas Coe 4 b) / \ 9 / oN
H OUY TIS UMas KpLWETW év BowoR Kal év TOTE 7H

16. 9 €v mwécoe.,

e.g. in Joh. vii. 4, where év mappyoia
eivac ‘to assume a bold attitude’ is
opposed to €v kpumT@ moveiy (comp.
xviii. 20); but it does not displace the
primary sense.

OptapBevoas| ‘leading them in ie
umph, the same metaphor asin 2 Cor.
li. 147@ mdvrore OptapBevorvte juas ev
T® XpioT@ «.t.X., where it is wrongly
translated in the A.Y. ‘ causeth us to
triumph.’ Here however it is the de-
feated powers of evil, there the sub-
jugated persons of men, who are led
in public, chained to the triumphal
car of Christ. This is the proper
meaning and construction of @prap-
Bevew, as found elsewhere. This verb
takes an accusative (1) of the person
over whom the triumph is celebrated,
eg. Plut. Vit. Arat. 54 rovroy Aipidtos
eOpiapBevoe, Thes. et Rom. Comp. 4
Baowrels €OptapBevoe: (2) of the spoils
exhibited in the triumph, e.g. Tatian
c. Graec. 26 mavaacbe hoyous addorpi-
ovs OprapBevovtes kal, domep 6 KoAoLOs,
ovk idiots émixkoopovpevor wrepois: (3)
more rarely of the substance of the
triumph, eg. Vit. Camill. 30 6 8é
Kapiddos eOpidpBevoe...rov dmod@Avias
cortnpa marpidos yevouevoy, i.e. ‘in the
character of his country’s saviour.’
The passive @prapBeverba is ‘to beled
in triumph, ‘to be triumphed over,’
eg. Vit. C. Mare. 35. So the Latins
say ‘triumphare aliquem’ and ‘trium-
phari.’

év alto] i.€. TO oTavpe: comp.
Ephes. ii. 16 droxaradAdén tovs audo-
Tépovs.+.d1a TOU otavpov. The violence
of the metaphor is its justification.
The paradox of the crucifixion is thus
placed in the strongest light—triumph
in helplessness and glory in shame.
The convict’s gibbet is the victor’s
car.

16—109. ‘Seeing then that the bond
is cancelled, that the law of ordinances
is repealed, beware of subjecting your-
selves to its tyranny again. Suffer no

man to call you to account in the
matter of eating or drinking, or again
of the observance of a festival or a
new moon or a sabbath. These are
only shadows thrown in advance, only
types of things to come. The sub-
stance, the reality, in every case be-
longs to the Gospel of Christ. The
prize is now fairly within your reach.
Do not suffer yourselves to be robbed
of it by any stratagem of the false
teachers. Their religion is an offi-
cious humility which displays itself in
the worship of angels. They make a
parade of their visions, but they are
following an empty phantom. They
profess humility, but they are puffed
up with their vaunted wisdom, which
is after all only the mind of the flesh.
Meanwhile they have substituted in-
ferior spiritual agencies for the One
true Mediator, the Eternal Word.
Clinging to these lower intelligences,
they have lost their hold of the Head;
they have severed their connexion
with Him, on whom the whole body
depends; from whom it derives its
vitality, and to whom it owes its unity,
being supplied with nourishment and
knit together in one by means of the
several joints and attachments, so that
it grows with a growth which comes
from God Himself,’

16 sq. The two main tendencies of
the Colossian heresy are discernible
in this warning (vv. 16—19), as they
were in the previous statement (vv. 9
—15). Here however the order is
reversed. The practical error, an ex-
cessive ritualism and ascetic rigour,
is first dealt with (vv. 16, 17); the
theological error, the interposition of
angelic mediators, follows after (vv.
18,19). The first is the substitution
of a shadow for the substance; the
second is the preference of an inferior
member to the head. The reversal of
order is owing to the connexion of the
paragraphs; the opening subject in

T1377)

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 193

> , ? ~ aN tA 3\ fs 17 eas 4
év MEepelL EopTHS 7] veounvias n caBBaTwv, 7 & éotW Kd

17- & €or oxida.

the second paragraph being a conti-
nuation of the concluding subject in
the first, by the figure called chiasm:
comp. Gal. iv. 5.

kpwéra] not ‘condemn you, but
‘take you to task’; as e.g. Rom. xiv.
3.sq. The judgment may or may not
end in an acquittal ; but in any case
it is wrong, since these matters ought
not to be taken as the basis of a judg-
ment.

ev Boooe xr.r.] Sin eating and
in drinking’; Rom. xiv. 17 ov yap
€otw 1 Baoideia Tov Geod Bpaats Kal
moots, GANG Sikatoovyn x.7T.d., Heb. ix.
IO émi Bpwpaciw Kal mopacw Kal da-
opus Barriopois, Stkadpatra capkos,
comp. I Cor. viii. 3 Bpdpua dé ruas od
mapaoryce TH Oem «tA. The first
indication that the Mosaic distinctions
of things clean and unclean should be
abolished is given by our Lord Him-
self: Mark vii. 14 sq. (the correct read-
ing in ver. 19 being xaOapi{wv wavra Ta
Bpopara). They were afterwards form-
ally annulled by the vision which ap-
peared to St Peter: Acts x. 11 sq.
The ordinances of the Mosaic law
applied almost exclusively to meats.
It contained no prohibitions respect-
ing drinks except in a very few cases;
e.g. of the priests ministering in the
tabernacle (Lev. x. 9), of liquids con-
tained in unclean vessels etc, (Lev.
xi. 34, 36), and of Nazarite vows
(Num. vi. 3). These directions, taken

in connexion with the rigid obser- .

vances which the later Jews had
grafted on them (Matt. xxiii. 24),
would be sufficient to explain the ex-
pression, when applied to the Mosaic
law by itself, as in Heb. 1.¢. The rigour
of the Colossian false teachers how-
ever, like that of their Jewish proto-
types the Hssenes, doubtless went far
beyond the injunctions of the law. It
is probable that they forbad wine and
animal food altogether: see the intro-
duction pp. 86, 104.sq. For allusions

COL.

in St Paul to similar observances not
required by the law, see Rom. xiv. 2
6 b€ aodevav Adyava éobier, Ver. 21 Ka-
Aov ro py hayeiv Kpéa pndé meiv oivoy
k.7.A., 1 Tim. iv. 2, 3 coAvovrery...dré-
xeo0a Bpopdrar a o Gcds exricev k.7.X.,
Tit. i. 14 py mpocéyorres...évrodais
avOperev...wavta kabapa Tois KaGapois.
The correct reading seems to be xai
ev wooet, thus connecting together the
words between which there is a natu-
ral affinity. Comp. Philo Vit, Moys.
i. § 33 (IL p. 110) deomoivas yaXerais
ouveCevypevov Bpooe Kal mooe, Ign.
Trall. 2 od} yap Bpeparev kai wordy
elolv diaKovot.

év péper| ‘in the matter of, etc.;
comp. 2 Cor, iii. 10, ix. 3 &v r@ pépec
rovre. The expression seems origi-
nally to mean ‘in the division or cate-
gory,’ and in classical writers most
commonly occurs in connexion with
such words as ridévat, woveio Oat, ap.0-
pety, etc.: comp. Demosth. c. Aristoer.
§ 148 dca...crpatiotns dv ev aevdo-
ynrou kal Widod pepet...eorparevTat, i.e.
‘in the capacity of.’ Hence it gets
to signify more widely, as here, ‘with
respect to,’ ‘by reason of’: comp.
Philo Quod det. pot. ins. § 2 (I. p. 192)
€v pépet Adyou Tov mpoKomTovTos Kara
Tov matépa Koopovuvta, in Flacc. 20
(IL. p. 542) dca év péper xapttos kat do-
peas €daBov. But Alian V. H. viii. 3
Kpivovres €xagTov €v TO péper ovov,
quoted by the commentators, is a false
parallel: for dovov is there governed
by xpivovres and év r@ pépet Means ‘in
his turn.’

éoptijs x.7.A.]| The same three words
occur together, as an exhaustive enu-
meration of the sacred times among
the Jews, in 1 Chron. xxiii. 31, 2 Chron.
ii. 4, xxxi. 3, Ezek. xlv, 17, Hos. ii. 11,
Justin Dial. 8, p. 226; comp. Is. i. 13,
14. See also Gal. iv. 10 nuepas mapa-
tnpeicbe Kal pijvas Kal Katpovs Kal €v-
avrovs, where the first three words
correspond to the three words used

13

194

Lon! , x A io ~ nw
TwVv pe\ACYTWY, TO bE THUa TOV XpioTov.

here, though the order is reversed.
The éopry here, like the xapoi there,
refers chiefly to the annual festivals,
the passover, pentecost, etc. The veo-
pnvia here describes more precisely
the monthly festival, which is there
designated more vaguely as pies.
The odSBara here gives by name the
weekly holy-day, which is there indi-
cated more generally by juépat.

veopnvias}] See Num. xxviii. 11 sq.
The forms veounvia and vouynvia seem
to be used indifferently in the common
dialect, though the latter is more
common. In the Attic vovpnvia alone
was held to be correct; see Lobeck
Phryn. p. 148. On the whole the
preference should perhaps be given
to veounvias here, as supported by
some authorities which are generally
trustworthy in matters of orthography,
and as being the less usual form in
itself.

caBBatov] ‘a sabbath-day, not, as
the A. V., ‘sabbath days’; for the co-
ordinated words €oprijs, veounvias, are
in the singular. The word caSSara
is derived from the Aramaic (as dis-
tinguished from the Hebrew) form
NNIY, and accordingly preserves the
Aramaic termination in a. Hence it
was naturally declined as a plural
noun, ca8Bara, ca8Barwv. The gene-
ral use of oa8Bara, when a single sab-
bath-day was meant, will appear from
such passages as Jos, Ant. i. I. 1 dyo-
pev THY npEpay, MpooayopEevovTes avTHV
caBBara, 2b. iii. 10. 1 éBdounv nyépav
qris oaBBara xadcira, Plut. Mor.
169 0 “Iovdatoe. caBBdrav dvrwy ev
dyvayrrots kabeCopevot, tb. 671 F ofwat dé
kal Tv Tov caBBarev €opTHy pr mavTa-
macw ampoodiwvucoy eivat, Hor. Sai.
i. 9. 69 ‘hodie tricesima sabbata.’? In
the New Testament oaSSara is only
once used distinctly of more than a
single day, and there the plurality of
meaning is brought out by the at-
tached numeral; Acts xvii. 2 ézi oaf-
Bara rpia.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[II. 18

18 undels

On the observance of days and sea-
sons see again Gal. iv. 10, Rom. xiv.
5,6. A strong anti-Judaic view on the
subject is expressed in the Zpist. ad
Diogn.§ 4. Origen c. Cels. viii. 21, 22,
after referring to Thucyd. i. 70 pyre
€opTiv GAXo Tt HyetoOat 7 TO Ta Séovra
mpa&at, SAYS 6 TéAELos, det €v ToIs Ad-'
yols @y Kal Tois epyots Kai Tois Siavon-
pact tov TH pioet Kupiov Aoyou Ceod,
del €oTiv avTou é€v Talis Hyepats Kal det
dyet kupiakds népas, and he then goes
on to explain what is the wapackevn,
the macya, the wevtnxoory, of such a
man. The observance of sacred times
was an integral part of the old dispen-
sation. .Under the new they have
ceased to have any value, except as a
means to anend. The great principle
that ‘the sabbath was made for man
and not man for the sabbath, though
underlying the Mosaic ordinances,
was first distinctly pronounced by our
Lord. The setting apart of special
days for the service of God is a con-
fession of our imperfect state, an
avowal that we cannot or do not de-
vote our whole time to Him. Sab-
baths will then ultimately be super-
seded, when our life becomes one
eternal sabbath. Meanwhile the Apo-
stle’s rebuke warns us against attri-
buting to any holy days whatever a
meaning and an importance which is
alien to the spirit of the New Covenant.
Bengel on the text writes, ‘Sabba-
tum non laudatur, non imperatur ;
dominica memoratur, non praecipitur.
Qui profundius in mundi negotiis hae-
rent, his utilis et necessarius est dies
definitus: qui semper sabbatizant,
majori libertate gaudent.’ Yes: but
these last are just they who will most
scrupulously restrict their liberty, so
as dmpookoro: yiver Oat.

17. Two ideas are prominent in
this image. (1) The contrast between
the ordinances of the Law and the
teaching of the Gospel, as the shadow
and the substance respectively ; Philo

i
i

II. 18]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

195

Uuas KataBpaBevéerw OérAwv ev TareEwoppocvvy Kat

de Conf. ling. 37 (1. p. 434) vopioavras
Ta pev pyTa TOY xXpnopav oKLdS TLVas
éoavel gwpareoy eiva, Joseph. B. J.
ii. 2. 5 oxcay airnoopevos Bactdelas
fs ipmwacev aura TO oGpa; comp.
Philo in Flace. 19 (11. p. 541) oxia mpay-
padrev dp joay, ov mpaypatra. (2) The
conception of the shadow as thrown
before the substance (7 5¢ oxida mporpé-
XEt TOU gaparos, says a Greek commen-
tator), so that the Law was a type and
presage of the Gospel; Heb. x. 1 oxuav
éxov 6 vowos Tav meANOvT@Y ayabay
(comp. viii. 5). Thus it implies both
the wnsubsiantiality and the super-
session of the Mosaic ritual.

a] ‘which things, whether ° dis-
tinctions of meats or observances of
times. If the other reading o be ta-
ken; it will refer to the preceding
sentence generally, as if the antece-
dent were ‘the whole system of ordi-
nances.’

TO S€ oapa x.7.A.] As the shadow
belonged to Moses, so ‘the substance
belongs to Christ’; i.e. the reality,
the antitype, in each case is found in
the Christian dispensation. Thus the
passover typifies the atoning sacrifice ;
the unleayened bread, the purity and
sincerity of the true believer; the
pentecostal feast, the ingathering of
the first fruits; the sabbath, the rest
of God’s people ; ete.

18. The Christian’s career is the
contest of the stadium (dpdpos, Acts
xx. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 7); Christ is the
umpire, the dispenser of the rewards
(2 Tim. iv. 8); life eternal is the bay
wreath, the victor’s prize (SpaPeiov,
1 Cor. ix. 24, Phil. iii. 14). The Co-
lossians were in a fair way to win this
prize; they had entered the lists duly ;
they were running bravely: but the
false teachers, thrusting themselves in
the way, attempted to trip them up
or otherwise impede them in the race,
and thus to rob them of their just
reward. For the idea of xaraSpa-
Beverw compare especially Gal. v. 7

erpéxere KaA@s’ Tis vas eveKower
K.T.A.

xaraBpaBevéera] ‘rob of the prize,
the BpaBeiov’; comp. Demosth. Mid.
p. 544 (one of the documents) émora-
pea Srpareva vro MewWiov karaBpa-
BevOévra kal mapa mavra ta Sixaa
drizwdévra, which presents a close
parallel to the use of xaraSpaBever
here. See also Eustath. on Z/. i. 403 sq.
(p. 43) xaraBpaBever avrov, ds pacw
of madaoi, ib. Opusc. 277, etc. The
false teachers at Colossze are not re-
garded as umpires nor as successful
rivals, but simply as persons frustrat-
ing those who otherwise would have
won the prize. The word caraBpaBevew |
is wide enough to include such. The
two compounds xaraBpaBevew and zra-
paBpaBevew (Plut. Mor. p. 535 © oi
mapaSpaBevovres €v Tois ayaor) only
differ in this respect, that deprivationis
the prominent idea in the former word
and trickery in the latter. Jerome,
Epist, exxi ad Algas, (1. p. 879), sets
down this word, which he wrongly
interprets ‘bravium accipiat adversum
vos,’ as one of St Paul’s Cilicisms.
The passages quoted (whether the
document in the Midias be authentic
or not) are sufficient to show that
this statement is groundless.

Grav ev] ‘taking delight in, ‘ de-
voting himself to’ The expression
is common in the Lxx, most frequently
as a translation of "2 75M, 1 Sam.
Xviii. 22, 2 Sam. xv. 26, 1 Kings x. 9,
2 Chron. ix. 8, Ps. exi. 1, exlvi. 10,
but in one passage of "1 MS,
1 Chron. xxviii. 4. So too Test. xit
Patr. Asher 1 éay ody 4 uxt Ody
év kako. Comp. also 1 Mace. iv. 42
OeAnras vdpov, and see eGedoOpnckeia
below. Against this construction no
valid objection has been urged. Other-
wise Oédv is taken absolutely, and
various senses have been assigned to
it, such as ‘imperiously’ or ‘ design-
edly’ or ‘wilfully’ or ‘gladly, readily’;
but these are either unsupported by

13—2

196

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[II. 18

th ~ 5) / A e/7 r) , 7 A
OpnoKeia TWV ayyEeAwy, a EopaKEy éuBarevor, €lKn Gbu-

usage or inappropriate to the context.
Leclerc (ad loc.) and Bentley (Crit.
Sacr. p. 59) conjectured @cAyav; Toup
(Emend. in Suid. 1. p. 63) more plau-
sibly €Adov; but the passages quoted
show that no correction is needed.

rarewoppoovvy| Humility is a vice
with heathen moralists, but a virtue
with Christian Apostles; see the note
on Phil. ii. 3. In this passage, which
(with ver. 23) forms the sole exception
to the general language of the Apo-
stles, the divergence is rather appa-
rent than real. The disparagement is
in the accompaniments and not in the
word itself. Humility, when it be-
comes self-conscious, ceases to have
any value; and self-consciousness at
least, if not affectation, is implied by
Oédkwv ev. Moreover the character of
the rarevodpocvvy in this case is fur-
ther defined as Opynoxeia ray adyyédoy,
which was altogether a perversion of
the truth.

@pnoxeiag] This word is closely con-
nected with the preceding by the vin-
culum of the same preposition. There
was an Officious parade of humility in
selecting these lower beings as inter-
cessors, rather than appealing di-
rectly to the throne of grace. The
word refers properly to the external
rites of religion, and so gets to sig-
nify an over-scrupulous devotion to
external forms; as in Philo Quod det.
pot. ins. 7 (1. Pp. 195) Opnokeiay avri
GovoTntos tyovpevos, Plut, Vit. Alea.
2 Soxei Kat TO OpnoKevervy Gvopa Tats
kaTakopots yevéoOar kat TepLepyots
iepovpyias: comp. Acts xxvi. 5, and
see the well-known remarks of Cole-
ridge on James i. 26, 27,in Aids to
Reflection p. 14. In the Lxx 6pn-
oxevew, Opnoxeia, together occur four
times (Wisd. xi. 16, xiv. 16, 18, 27),
and in all these examples the refer-
ence is to idolatrous or false worship.
Indeed generally the usage of the
word exhibits a tendency to a bad
sense.

Trav ayyeiov| For the angelology
and the angelolatry of these Colossian
false teachers, more especially in its
connexion with Essene.teaching, see
the introduction, pp. 89 sq., IoI sq.,
110,115 8q. For the prominence which
was given to angelology in the specu-
lations of the Jews generally, see the
Preaching of Peter quoted in Clem.
Alex. Sirom. vi. 5 (p. 760) pyndێ Kara
"Jovdalouvs o€Berbe, Kal yap ékeivot...
ouk éniotavrat atpevortes ayyédots
kal dpxayyeAots, Celsus in Orig. c. Cels.
v. 6 (I. p. 580) mparov ody rev Iovdaiwv
Oavpdtew aksor, ei Tov pev ovpavov kat
Tovs ev TOOE ayyedous aEBovor K.T.r.,
comp. 2b. i. 26 (p. 344). From Jews
it naturally ,;spread to Judaizing
Christians; e.g. Clem. Hom. iii. 36
dyyehov ovopata yvapicery, Vili. 12 8q.,
Test. xii Patr. Levi 3 (quoted above
on i. 16), The interest however ex-
tended to more orthodox circles, as
appears from the passage in Ignat.
Trall. 5 pn ov Svvapa ta érovpana
ypawat ;...dvvayat voei ta éemovpana
kal tas tomoGecias tas ayyedtKkas Kal
Tas GvaTagels TAs apyovTiKds K.T.A. (See
the note there). Of angelology among
Gnostic sects see Iren. ii. 30. 6, ii. 32.
5, Orig. c. Cels. vi. 30 sq. (1. p. 653),
Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. p. 970 8q.,
Pistis Sophia pp. 2, 19, 23, ete.

a é€dpaxev k.7.A.] literally ‘invading
what he has seen, which is generally
explained to mean ‘parading’ or ‘por-
ing over his visions.’ For this sense of
eu Barevery, Which takes either a geni-
tive or a dative or an accusative, comp.
Philo de Plant. Noe ii. 19 (1. p. 341)
of TpoT@TEP® XwpodvTEes TOY émtoTN-
pov kal emt mr€eov éuBarevovtes avrais,
2 Mace. li. 30 To pev euBarevovres Kai
Tept mavT@y ToteiaOat Aoyoy Kal moAv-
mpaypovely ev Tots Kata pépos. At a
later date this sense becomes com-
mon, e.g. Nemesius de Nat. Hom.
p. 64 (ed. Maitheei) ovpaviy éeuBarever
77 Oewpia. In Xen. Symp. iv. 27 év
TO avT@ BiBrie duorepor euBarevere

II 19]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 197

/ A ~ \ ~ A a
GLOVMEVOS VO TOV voos THS TapKos av’TOU, Kal ov

rt, the reading may be doubtful. But
though a édpaxev singly might mean
‘his visions, and éuSarevov ‘ busying
himself with, the combination ‘ inva-
ding what he has seen,’ thus inter-
preted, is so harsh and incongruous
as to be hardly possible; and there
was perhaps some corruption in the
text prior to all existing authorities
(see the note on Phil. ii. 1 for a par-
allel case). Did the Apostle write
édpa (or aldpa) xeveuBarevov ? In this
case the existing text aewpakenem
BaTeywn might be explained partly
by an attempt to correct the form
eopa into aidpa or conversely, and
partly by the perplexity of transcribers
when confronted with such unusual
words. This reading had suggested
itself to me independently without
the knowledge that, so far as regards
the latter word, it had been antici-
pated by others in the conjecture 4
éopa (or & édpaxev) keveuBarevav. The
word xeveyBareivy ‘to walk on empti-
ness,’ ‘to tread the air’ and so meta-
phorically (like depoBareiv, aidepoBa-
tei, aidepepBareiv, etc.) ‘to indulge in
vain speculations,’ is not an uncommon
word. For its metaphorical sense espe-
cially see Plut. Mor. p. 336 F obras épéu-
Bero xevepBarovy cal opaddopevoy ir’
avapxias Td péyebos avrijs, Basil. Op.
I. Pp. 135 Tov vodv...pupia mdravnbévra
kal moNAa kevepBarioayra k.t.A., ib. I.
p. 596 cod Sé pi KevepBareirw 6 voids,
Synes. de Insomn. p. 156 ovre yap xe-
veuBarovvras Tovs dyous éénveyxav.
Though the precise form keveuBarevewv
does not occur, yet it is unobjection-
able in itself. For the other word
which I have ventured to suggest,
€opa Or aidpa, see Philo de Soman. ii. 6
(I. p. 655) droruhodpevos im ai-
apas ppevav kal kevod vonparos, id.
§ 9 (p. 667) rnv én aiwpas hopoupe-
vnv kevip Sogav, Quod Deus immut.
§ 36 (I. p. 298) domep én’ aidpas ti-
vos Wevdods kal aBeBaiov ddéns opei-
o6a xara kxevovd Baivovra, The

first and last passages more especially
present striking parallels, and show
how germane to St Paul’s subject
these ideas of ‘suspension or ba-
lancing in the air’ (éépa or aidpa)
and ‘treading the void’ (xeveuBarevetv)
would be, as expressing at once the
spiritual pride and the emptiness of
these speculative mystics; see also de
Somn. ii. 2 (p. 661) eudaiverar kat rd
ms kevis So&ns, eh hy, os ef appa,
dia 7d Kotvhov dvaBaiver, dvow-
fhevos Kal perémpoy napynk®s éavToy.
The substantive, éapa or aispa, is used
sometimes of the instrument for sus-
pending, sometimes of the position of
suspension. In this last sense it de-
scribes the poising of a bird, the float-
ing of a boat on the waters, the ba-
lancing on a rope, and the like. Hence
its expressiveness when used as a me- |
taphor.

In the received text a negative is
inserted, a& py édpaxev épBarevov.
This gives a very adequate sense ‘7n-
truding into those things which he
has not seen’; od yap cider ayyédous,
says Chrysostom, kal ovr@ didkerrat ws
idav: comp. Ezek. xiii. 3 oval rots mpo-
gyrevovow aro xapdias aitav Kal rd
KaOodov pr Bréerovew. But, though
the difficulty is thus overcome, this
cannot be regarded as the original
reading of the text, the authorities
showing that the negative was an after
insertion. See the detached note on
various readings.

For the form édpaxeyv, which is bet-
ter supported here than édpaxev, see
the note on ii. 1.

eixy pvotovpevos | ‘vainly puffedup.
Their profession of humility was a
cloke for excessive pride: for, as
St Paul says elsewhere (1 Cor. viii.
1),% yvadors muowot. It may be ques-
tioned whether eik7 should be con-
nected with the preceding or the fol-
lowing words. Its usual position in
St Paul, before the words which it
qualifies (Rom. xiii. 4, 1 Cor. xv. 2,

198

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

PEE TS

KpaTwv Thy Kepadsy, €E ov Wav TO THMa Oia THY dpav

Gal. iv. 11; there is an exceptional
reason for the exceptional position in
Gal. iii. 4), points to the latter con-
struction.

tod voos Kt.A.| ‘the mind of his
Jlesh,’ i.e. unenlightened by the Spirit ;
comp. Rom. viii. 7 ro povnya tis
capxos. It would seem that the
Apostle is here taking up some watch-
word of the false teachers. They
doubtless boasted that they were di-
rected v6 rov voos. Yes, he answers,
but it is 6 vots Tis capxds vpov. Com-
pare Rey. ii. 24, where the favourite
Gnostic boast ywookev ra Babéa is
characterized by the addition of rot
Zarava (see Galatians p. 298, note 3).
Comp. August. Conf. x. 67 ‘Quem
invenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi?
Ambiendum mihi fuit ad angelos?
Qua prece? quibus sacramentis?
Multi conantes ad te redire, neque
per se ipsos valentes, sicut audio, ten-
taverunt haec et inciderunt in deside-
rium curiosarum visionum et digni
habiti sunt illusionibus. Elati enim
te quaerebant doctrinae fastu, etc,’

19. ov kpatav] ‘not holding fast.’
This is the most common construction
and meaning of xpareiv in the New
Testament; e.g. Mark vii. 8 agévres
THY evToAnY Tov Ccov KpaTette THY
mapadoow Téy dvépérev; comp. Cant.
iii, 4 edpov ov nyannoev 4 Wuxn pov,
expatnoa avrov Kal ovK adjKa avrov.

thy keparny| ‘the Head’ regarded
as a title, so that a person is at once
suggested, and the relative which
follows is masculine, é€ 06; comp. the
parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 16 6s éoruy
n kepadn, Xpioros €& ov wav TO copa
xkt.. The supplication and worship
of angels is a substitution of inferior
members for the Head, which is the
only source of spiritual life and energy.
See the introduction pp. 34, 78, 101
8q., 115 sq.

dua tov apav x.t.r.] ‘through the
junctures and ligaments.’ Galen, when
describing the structure of the human

frame, more than once specifies the
elements of union as twofold: the
body owes its compactness partly to
the articulation, partly to the attach-
ment; e.g. Op. I. p. 734 (ed. Kithn)
€ote O€ 6 Tpdros THS cvvOécEws adTadY
Ourros kara yévos, 0 wey Erepos Kara
apOpoyv, 6 S€ erepos kata cuppvoer.
Similarly, though with a more general
reference, Aristotle speaks of two
kinds of union, which he describes
as aby ‘contact? and aipdvoars
‘cohesion’ respectively ; Metaph. iv. 4
(p. 1014) duaheper bé cvphvors agpijs’
eva pev yap ovbev mapa thy adiy €repor
dvaykn etvat, ev dé Trois ovpmredpuKdory
€oTl TL Ev TO avTO ev auoiv 6 ToLEt
avtt rod dmtecOar cupmeduxévar Kat
evar év k.t.d., Phys. Ausc. iv. 6 (p.
213) rovros adn é€orw* cvpdvors dé,
étay audw evepyeia ev yévwvrar (comp.
ab. V. 3, p. 227), Metaph. x. 3 (p. 1071)
doa éotivy apy Kat py) ovpdvce. The
relation of contiguous surfaces and
the connexion of different parts to-
gether effect structural unity. This
same distinction appears in the A-
postle’s language here. Contact and
attachment are the primary ideas in
adai and civderpo. respectively.

Of the function of adn, ‘ contact,’ in
physiology (epi adijs rijs év rots put
kois) Aristotle speaks at some length
in one passage, de Gen. et Corr.i. 6
(p. 322 sq.). It may be mentioned,
as illustrating St Paul’s image, that
Aristotle in this passage lays great
stress on the mutual sympathy and
influence of the parts in contact, de-
scribing them as ma@nrixd kat mountika
and as kivnriKa Kal Kuta Um adAnror.
ilsewhere, like St Paul here, he uses
the plural ai adai; de Caelo i. 11 (p.
280) ro avev POopas oré peév av ore dé
[41 Ov, Olov Tas adas, Ste avev Tov Pbei-
pecOat mporepov ovaat Varepov ovk eiciv,
de Gen. et Corr. i. 8 (p. 326) ovre yap
kata tas adas évdéxerar Suevar dia
Trav Siahavay ovte Sia THY TOpey, td.

§ 9 (p. 327) ef yap StaxpiverOar Svvarae

II. 19]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

199:

\ , ? , \ ,
Kal ouvoécpwy émtxopntyoupevoy Kat ovyiBaCouevov

kata Tas das, oomep pact tives, Kav
pyro 7 Sinpnpevov, Eorar Sinpnpévor"
Suvardv yap Svaipe9jvac: comp. [Plat.]
Axioch. p. 365 A ovveheypévoy ras
apas kai T@ cepate popadéorv. It is
quite clear from these passages of
Aristotle, more especially from the
distinction of d@ai and wépo, that ai
agai are the joinings, the junctures.
When applied to the human body
they would be ‘joints? provided that
_ we use the word accurately of the re-
lations between contiguous limbs, and
not loosely (as it is often used) of the
parts of the limbs themselves in the
neighbourhood of the contact. Hip-
pocrates indeed used dai as a physio-
logical term in a different sense, em-
ploying it as a synonyme for dupara
i.e. the fasciculi of muscles (see Galen
Op. xIx. p. 87), but this use was quite
exceptional and can have no place
here. Thus ai ddai will be almost a
synonyme for ra dpOpa, differing how-
ever (1) as being more wide and com-
prehensive, and (2) as not emphasizing
so strongly the adapiation of the
contiguous parts.

The considerations just urged seem
decisive as to the meaning of the
word. Some eminent modern critics
however explain ai apai to be ‘the
senses,’ following Theodoret on Ephes.
iv. 16 adjy dé rhv aicOnow mpoonyo-
pevoev, emetd) Kal a’tn pla Tay wévTe
aicOjoewyv, Kal amd Tov pépous TO Tay
evopace. St Chrysostom had led the
way to this interpretation, though his
language is less explicit than Theo-
doret’s. To such a meaning how-
ever there are fatal objections. (1)
This sense of adn is wholly unsup-
- ported. It is true that touch lies at
the root of all sensations, and that
this fact was recognised by ancient
physiologists: e.g. Aristot. de Anim.
i. 13 (p. 435) Gvev pev yap adfs ovde-
play evdéxera GdAnv atoOnow exew. But
here the connexion,ends; and unless
more cogent examples not hitherto ad-

ducedare forthcoming, we are justified
in saying that ai dai could no more
be used for ai aicOjoeas, than in
English ‘ the touches’ could be taken
as a synonyme for ‘the senses.’ (2) The
image would be seriously marred by
such a meaning. The dai and ovp-
deoyot would no longer be an ex-
haustive description of the elements
of union in the anatomical structure ;
the conjunction of things so incon-
gruous under the vinculum of the
same article and preposition, 6.4 rav
adeav Kal ovvdccpor, would be un-
natural; and the intrusion of the
‘senses’ would be out of place, where
the result specified is the. supply of
nourishment (emtyopyyovpevov) and the
compacting of the parts (cvvBiBats-
pevov). (3) All the oldest versions, the
Latin, the Syriac, and the Memphitic,
explain it otherwise, so as to refer in
some way to the connexion of the
parts of the body; eg. in the Old
Latin it is rendered nexus here and
junctura in Ephes. iv. 16.

ovvdécpor | ‘bands, ‘ligaments. The
Greek ovvSecpos, like the English ‘ liga-
ment,’ hasageneral and aspecial sense.
Inits general and comprehensive mean-
ing it denotes any of the connecting
bands which strap the body together,
such as muscles or tendons or liga-
ments properly so called; in its special
and restricted use it is a ‘ligament’
in the technical sense; comp. Galen
Op. IV. p. 369 auvvdecpos yap éorwy, 6
yodv idiws, ov Kowads dvopaCopevos, oa-
pa vevpades €€ doTod pév dpyopevor
mavrws Siaredpuxos 6 i) eis dorobr i) eis
pov. Of the ovvderpo. or ligaments
properly so called Galen describes at
length the several functions and uses,
more especially as binding and holding
together the duapOpeceis; Op. 1. 236,
Il, 268, 739, II. 149, Iv. 2, etc., comp.
Tim. Locr. de An. Mund. p. 557 ovv-
déopois morray kivacw Tois vevpos
cuvaye ta apOpa (Opusc. Mythol. ete.
ed. Gale). In our text indeed ow-

200

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

LEI;20

Sf \ of a lan 9 , \ a
avgea tiv avénow Tov Geov. *°et dreGavete cuv XpicTo

Seopoc must be taken in its compre-
hensive sense; but the relation of the
adai to the ovvderpor in St Paul still
remains the same as that of the d:ap-
Opdcets to the cvvSecpor in Galen.
emtxopnyovpevoy k.7.A.| The two func-
tions performed by the agai and ovv-
decpoe are first the supply of nutri-
ment etc. (em:yopnyovpevov), and se-
condly the compacting of the frame
(cuvBiBafopevov). In other words
they are the communication of life
and energy, and the preservation of
unity and order. The source of all (e&
ov) is Christ Himself the Head; but
the channels of communication (da
Tov k.T.A.) are the different members
of His body, in their relation one to

another. For émyopnyovpevoy ‘bounti- |

fully furnished’ see the note on Gal.
iii. 5. Somewhat similarly Aristotle
speaks of capa ka\Xora mepuKos Kal

Kexopnynpevov, Pol. iv. I (p. 1288).

For examples of yopnyia applied to
functions of the bodily organs, see
Galen. Op. II. p. 617 év rais elomvoais
xopnyia uxpas moornros, Alex. Probl.
i. 81 TO mAcioTov THS Tpodns eEvdapov-
pevoy xopnyetrar mpos yeveolv Tov md-
Oovs. For ovrBiBaCopevor, ‘joined to-
gether, compacted,’ see the note on
ii. 2. In the parallel passage, Ephes.
iv. 16, this part of the image is more
distinctly emphasized, cvvappodoyovpe-
vov kat cvvBiBatopevov. The difference
corresponds to the different aims of
the two epistles. In the Colossian
letter the vital connexion with the
Head is the main theme; in the
Ephesian, theunity in diversity among
the members.
avées tnyv avénow x.T.r.| By the two-
‘fold means of contact and attach-
ment nutriment has been diffused and
structural unity has been attained,
but these are not the ultimate result ;
they are only intermediate processes ;
the end is growth. Comp. Arist.
Metaph. iv.4(p.1014) avénou éxyer 8

ad a of. N ’
érépov TO AmTEg Oat kal TvETEPUKE-

vat...d.apéeper Se cdpvors adjs,where
growth is attributed to the same two
physiological conditions as here.

tov Geov| i.e. ‘which partakes of
God, which belongs to God, which
has its abode in God’ Thus the finite
is truly united with the Infinite; the
end which the false teachers strove
in vain to compass is attained; the
Gospel vindicates itself as the true
theanthropism, after which the human
heart is yearning and the human in-
tellect is feeling. See above, p. 117
sq. With this conclusion of the sen-
tence contrast the parallel passage
Ephes. iv. 16 rnv avénow rod ooparos
mMotettat eis oixodopny €avTov ev
dydman, Where again the different
endings are determined by the dif-
ferent motives of the two epistles.

The discoveries of modern physi-
ology have invested the Apostle’s
language with far greater distinctness
and force than it can have worn to.
his own contemporaries. Any expo-
sition of the nervous system more
especially reads like a commentary on
his image of the relations between the
body and the head. At every turn
we meet with some fresh illustration
which kindles it with a flood of light.
The volition communicated from the
brain to the limbs, the sensations of
the extremities telegraphed back to
the brain, the absolute mutual sym-
pathy between the head and the
members, the instantaneous paralysis
ensuing on the interruption of con-
tinuity, all these add to the com-
pleteness and life of the image. But
the following passages will show how
even ancient scientific speculation was
feeling after those physiological truths
which the image involves; Hippocr.
de Morb. Sacr. p. 309 (ed. Foese) kara
ravta vopito tov éykédpadoy duvap.y
TreloTny exew ev TH avOparra...oi de
6pOarpoi kat ta ovata kal 7 yAoooa
kai ai yeipes Kat of 70des, ola Gy O éyKé-
gados ywwedoKyn, ToradTa VINPETOUCL..

CNP OTS IE ES

et Ge res

IT. 20]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 201

. \ ~ , a , , ~ ,
amr0 THY OTOLXYELWY TOU KOTMOV, TL WS CavTES ev KOTUM

> 4 ¢
és O€ THy civerw 6 eyKéepados Eativ o
A > ¢

duayyéArov...dcdre yl tov eyxedhadov

> , \

eivat TOV Epunvevovra THY GUVECL, ai dé
cod ,

hpéves Gros Gvopa €xovot TH TYXN

ce ,

KekTnLEvov...Aeyouor O€ Tives WS Ppove-

ouev TH KApOLN Kal TO Gvi@pEvov TodTO

> ao, AN , Jag ee of
€ott Kai TO povrifoy’ rd dé ovx ovTas

a a / > , 4 =
ExeL...THS...ppovygtos ovdeTepw pérec-

Tw GAN: mavT@yv TouTéwy 6 éyxéados
airis é€oTW...mpatos aigOdvera Oo éy-
Képahos Tav év TH TwpaTl EvedvTaV
(where the theory is mixed up with
some curious physiological specula-
tions), Galen. Op. I. 235 avros dé 6
eyxepados Ott pev adpyi) Tois vevpos
dmaot tis Suvapeds eotw, éevapyas
euadbouev...morepov dé ws avtos Tois
veupois, oUT@ ékelvp madw Erepov Te
Moptoy émiméeuret, } myn Tis avTov
é€otiv, ér adndov, tb. Iv. p. 11 dpyn pev
yap. adray (i.e. Trav vedpwr) 6 éyxépados
€ort, kal Ta TaOn eis avrov épet, oiov
cis dpoupdy tiva tis AoyroTtiKhs Wuxijs"
expvois & évrevOev, olov mpéuvov Tivos
eis O€vdpov avyxovros péya, 6 vartiaids
€oTt pvedos...cvpmay © ovrw TO oopa
petadapBaver Ov avrav'mperns pev Kal
paduora Kuyoews, ext taitn 8 aicbn-
gews, XIV. Pp. 313 avdrn yap (i.e. 7
kepadn) kabamrep tis axpomoNls éore Tod
Goparos Kal Ta TimiwTaT@Y Kal avay-
Kaotar@r avyOperos aicOnoewy oiKnTn-
pov. Plato had made the head the
central organ of the reason (Z'im. 69
8q.: see Grote’s Plato m1. pp. 272,
287, Aristotle i. p. 179 8q.), if in-
deed the speculations of the Timzeus
may be regarded as giving his serious
physiological views ; but he had postu-
lated other centres of the emotions
and the appetites, the heart and the
abdomen. Aristotle, while rightly re-
fusing to localise the mind as mind,
had taken a retrograde step physio-
logically, when he transferred the
centre of sensation from the brain to
the heart; e.g. de Part. Anim. ii. 10
(p. 656). Galen, criticizing his pre-
decessors, says of Aristotle d7Ads éore
kareyvakods pev avrod (i.e. Tod éyxeda-

Aov) reAéay dxpnotiay, pavepds & dpo-
Aoyety aidovpevos (Op. m1. p. 625). The
Stoics however (Zjvev cai Xpiourmos
dua tO oerép@ xop6 mavri) Were even
worse offenders ; and in reply to them
more especially Galen elsewhere dis-
cusses the question mérepov éyxéhados
i) kapdia thy dpxhy exer, Op. Vv. p. 213
sq. Bearing in mind all this diversity
of opinion among ancient physiologists,
we cannot fail to be struck in the
text not only with the correctness of
the image but also with the propriety
of the terms; and we are forcibly
reminded that among the Apostle’s
most intimate companions at this time
was one whom he calls ‘the beloved
physician’ (iv. 14).

20—23. ‘You died with Christ to
your old life. All mundane relations
have ceased for you. Why then do
you—you who have attained your
spiritual manhood—submit still to
the rudimentary discipline of children?
Why do you—you who are citizens of
heaven—bow your necks afresh to
the tyranny of material ordinances, as
though you were still living in the
world? It is the same old story again ;
the same round of hard, meaningless,
vexatious prohibitions, ‘ Handle not,’
‘Taste not,’ ‘Touch not.” What folly!
When all these things—these meats

. and drinks and the like—are earthly,

perishable, wholly trivial and unim-
portant! They are used, and there
is an end of them. What is this, but
to draw down upon yourselves the
denunciations uttered by the prophet
of old? What is this but to abandon
God’s word for precepts which are
issued by human authority and incul-
cated by human teachers? All such
things have a show of wisdom, I grant.
There is an officious parade of re-
ligious devotion, an eager affectation
of humility; there is a stern ascetic
rigour, which ill-treats the body: but
there is nothing of any real value
to check indulgence of the flesh,’

202 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

OoymatiCerbe ; Mi ayy

20, From the theological tenets of
the false teachers the Apostle turns
to the ethical—from the objects of
their worship to the principles of
their conduct. The baptism into
Christ, he argues, is death to the
world. The Christian has passed
away to another sphere of existence.
Mundane ordinances have ceased to
have any value for him, because his
mundane life has ended. They be-
long to the category of the perishable;
he has been translated to the region
of the eternal. It is therefore a denial
of his Christianity to subject himself
again to their tyranny, to return once
more to the dominion of the world.
See again the note on iii. 1.

ei dmeOdvere] ‘if ye died, when ye,

were baptized into Christ.’ For this
connexion between baptism and death
see the notes on ii. 11, iii. 3. This
death has many aspects in St Paul’s
teaching. It is not only a dying with
Christ, 2 Tim. ii. 11 ef yap ovvareda-
vopev ; but itis also a dying to or from
something. This is sometimes repre-
sented as sin, Rom. Vi. 2 oirives ameOa-
vouev TH dpaptia (comp. vv. 7, 8);
sometimes as self, 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 dpa oi
mavtes améOavov...iva of CavrTes pnxere
éavtots Caow; sometimes as the law,
Rom. vii. 6 xatnpynOnwev dro Tov vo-
pov drofavorvres, Gal. ii. 19 dia vopov
von ameOavoyv ; sometimes still more
widely as the world, regarded as the
sphere of all material rules and all
mundane interests, so here and iii. 3
dmeOavere yap. In all cases St Paul
uses the aorist dméfavoy, never the
perfect réOynxa; for he wishes to em-
phasize the one absolute crisis, which
was marked by the change of changes.
When the aorist is wanted, the com-
pound verb avoOyjcxew is used ; when
the perfect, the simple verb @yjckew ;
see Buttmann Ausf Gramm. § 114.
This rule holds universally in the
Greek Testament.

dro tov aroyeiay KT.r.] Le. ‘from

[IL 21,22

pnde yevon pnde Biyns *(é&

the rudimentary, disciplinary, ordi-
nances, whose sphere is the mundane
and sensuous’: see the note on ver.
8. For the pregnant expression dzo-
Oavetv dro comp. Gal. v. 4 xatnpynOnre
aro Xpicrod (so too Rom. vii. 2, 6),
2 Cor. xi. 3 HOap7...dm6 THs amAdryTOs,
and see A. Buttmann p. 277 note.

Soypariferbe| fare ye overridden
with precepts, ordinances’ In the
Lxx the verb doyparitew is used seve-
ral times, meaning ‘to issue a decree,’
Esth. iii. 9, 1 Esdr. vi. 33, 2 Mace. x.
8, xv. 36, 3 Mace. iv. 11. Elsewhere
it is applied most commonly to the
precepts of philosophers; e.g. Justin
Apol. i. 7 of év “E\Anot ta adrois
dpeota Soypatioartes x mavtds TO
évi ovopart Pitocodias mpocayopev-
ovrae (comp. § 4), Hpict. iii, 7. 17 sq.
ei Oédeis eivar hirocodos...doyparitov
Ta aicypd. Here it would include
alike the Soyyara of the Mosaic law
(ver. 14) and the Soypara of the ‘ phi-
losophy’ denounced above (ver. 8).
Both are condemned; the one as super-
seded though once authoritative, the
other as wholly vexatious and un-
warrantable. Examples are given in
the following verse, py dwn k.t.X.
For the construction here, where
the more remote object, which would
stand in the dative with the active
voice (2 Mace, x. 8 edoypdricay...red
Tov “lovdaiwy é6ver), becomes the
nominative of the passive, compare
xpnparifecOar Matt. il, 12, 22, dcaxo-
veioOac Mark x. 45, and see Winer
§ xxxix. p. 326, A. Buttmann p. 163,
Kiihner § 378, 1. p. 109.

21. Mz) awn «.7.A.] The Apostle dis-
paragingly repeats the prohibitions of
the false teachers in their own words,
‘Handle not, neither taste, neither
touch.’ The rabbinical passages quoted
in. Schéttgen show how exactly St
Paul’s language reproduces, not only
the spirit, but even the form, of these
injunctions. The Latin commenta-
tors, Hilary and Pelagius, suppose

—

SSS eES

we

er te

GEE Se Oe

TI. 22]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 203

E cavTa eis DdOopav TH earovy, ‘cet KATA TO
OTL T Pop i) xen ’

these prohibitions to be the Apostle’s
own, thus making a complete shipwreck

of the sense. So too St Ambrose de

Noe et Arca 25 (1. p. 267), de Abr. i.
6 (I. p. 300). We may infer from the
language of St Augustine who argues
against it, that this was the popular
interpretation in his day: ist. cxix
(II. p. 512) ‘tanquam praeceptum pu-
tatur apostoli, nescio quid tangere,

‘gustare, attaminare, prohibentis.’ The

ascetic tendency of the age thus
fastened upon a slight obscurity in
the Greek and made the Apostle
recommend the very practices which

he disparaged. For a somewhat simi-
lar instance of a misinterpretation

commonly received see the note on

‘ois Soypacw ver. 14. Jerome how-

ever (1. p.878) had rightly interpreted

‘the passage, illustrating it by the pre-

cepts of the Talmud. At a still earlier
date Tertullian, Adv. Mare. v. 19,
gives the correct interpretation.
These prohibitions relate to defile-
ment contracted in divers ways by
contact with impure objects. Some
were doubtless reenactments of the
Mosaic law; while others would be
exaggerations or additions of a rigor-
ous asceticism, such as we find among
the Essene prototypes of these Colos-

‘sian heretics, e.g. the avoidance of oil,
of wine, or of flesh-meat, the shunning

of contact with a stranger or a re-
ligious inferior, and the like; see pp.

‘85 sq. For the religious bearing of

this asceticism, as springing from the
dualism of these heretical teachers,
see above, pp. 79, 104. sq.

awn] The difference between arrec-
Oa and @ryyavew is not great, and in
some passages where they occur toge-
ther, it is hard to distinguish them :
e.g. Hxod. xix. 12 mpoaéyere éavrots rou
dvaBnva eis Td dpos Kal Ovyety re av-
Tov" was 6 ayydpevos Tov dpous Bavaro
redevtnoet, Hur. Bacch. 617 ovr €6vyev
ov6 jal hur, Arist. de Gen. et Corr.

“1.8 (p. 326) dia ri ov yiyverar dapeva

év, womep Vdwp Vdatos stray Oiyn;
Dion Chrys. Or. xxxiv (I. p. 50) of
& ék mapépyou mpociacw arropevor
povoy Tov mpadyparos, Oomep of omovoys
Ovyyavovres, Themist. Paraphr.
Arist. 95 rhv 8€ adpny aitav drrecbat
Tav aigOnra@v dvayKatov’ Kal yap Tov-
voua avtis ék ToD dm@recOat Kal Ory-
yavewv. But drrecOa is the stronger
word of the two. This arises from
the fact that it frequently suggests,
though it does not necessarily involve,
the idea of a voluntary or conscious
effort, ‘to take hold of’ —a suggestion
which is entirely wanting to the co-
lourless word @vyyaveww; comp. The-
mist. Paraphr. Arist. 94 7 trav (oor
adi Kpiots €otl kal dvridnwus rov Ocy-
yavovros. Hence in Xen. Cyrop.i. 3.

LA , ea) o@ A a
5 ore oe, Pavat, ope, oTav prev TOU aprov

dwn, eis oddev THY xeipa aroWepevor,
drav Sé rovra@v Tivos Oiyns, evOds droKa-
Oaiper Thy xEipa eis TA YelpopaKTpa k.T.A.
Thusthe words chosen inthe Latin Ver-
sions, tangere for drrecOa and attami-
nare or contrectare for Orye<iv, are un-
fortunate, and ought to be transposed.

‘Our English Version, probably infiu-

enced by the Latin, has erred in the
same direction, translating drrecOa
by ‘touch’ and O@yeiv by ‘handle,’
Here again they must be transposed.
‘Handle’ is too strong a word for ei-
ther ; though in default of a better it
may stand for admreo@a, which it more
nearly represents. Thus the two words
awn and 6iyns being separate in mean-
ing, yevon may well interpose ; and the
three together will form a descending
series, so that, as Beza (quoted in
Trench WN. 7. Syn. § xvii. p. 57) well
expresses it, ‘decrescente semper
oratione, intelligatur crescere super-
stitio.’

On the other hand dWy has been
interpreted here as referring to the
relation of husband and wife, as e.g.
in 1 Cor. vii. 1 yuvaixds px) arrec bat ;
and the prohibition would then be
illustrated by the teaching of the he-

204

ENTAAMATA KAI
retics in 1 Tim. iv. 3 ckaAvovrwv yapeiv.
But, whatever likelihood there may be
that the Colossian false teachers also
held this doctrine (see above, p. 85 sq.),
it nowhere appears in the context,
and we should not expect so import-
ant a topic to be dismissed thus cur-
sorily. Moreover 6:yyavewv is used as
commonly in this meaning as dmrec Oat
(see Gataker Op. Crit. p. 79, and ex-
amples might be multiplied); so that
all ground for assigning it to dmrec-
Ga especially is removed. Both dar-
recOa and @ryyavew refer to defile-
ment incurred through the sense of
touch, though in different degrees ;
‘Handle not, nor yet taste, nor even
touch.’

22. ‘Only consider what is the real
import of this scrupulous avoidance.
Why, you are attributing an inherent
value to things which are fleeting ;
you yourselves are citizens of eternity,
and yet your thoughts are absorbed
in the perishable.’

a| ‘which things, i.e. the meats
and drinks and other material objects,
regarded as impure to the touch. The
antecedent to a is implicitly involved
in the prohibitions 7) dwWy «.7.A.

éarw eis POopay] ‘are destined for
corruption. For similar expressions
see Acts viii. 20 ein els dmoAcav
(comp. ver. 23 els xyoAny mixpias Kal
ovvdecpov ddikias...ovra), 2 Pet. ii. 12
VEYEVINMEVA...... eis GAwowv Kat POopar.
For the word ¢éopa, involving the idea
of ‘ decomposition,’ see the note on Gal.
vi. 8. The expression here corresponds
to eis ddedpadva éexBadrerau (€xmopeve-
rat), Matt. xv. 17, Mark vii. 19.

TH amoxpnoer| ‘in the consuming,
Comp. Senec. de Vit. beat. 7 ‘in ipso
usu sui periturum.’ While the verb
dmoxypepa is common, the substantive
aréxpnois is extremely rare: Plut.
Mor. p. 267 F xaipew rais rovavrats
amoxpnoect kat ovaoToNals TOY TepiTTaY

(i.e. ‘by such modes of consuming and ©

abridging superfluities’), Dion. Hal.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS,

AIAACKAAIAC

[Else

TON ANOPHWTWN’
A. R. i. 58 ev droypnoe: yis polpas.
The unusual word was chosen for its
expressiveness: the ypjoi here was
an amoypnots ; the things could not
be used without rendering them unfit
for further use. The subtlety of the
expression in the original cannot be
reproduced in any translation.

On the other hand the clause is
sometimes interpreted as a continua-
tion of the language of the ascetic
teachers ; ‘ Touch not things which all
lead to ruin by their abuse’ This in-
terpretation however has nothing to
recommend it. It loses the point of
the Apostle’s argument; while it puts
upon eva: eis Oopay a meaning which
is at least not natural.

kara k.t.A.| connected directly with
VY. 20, 21, so that the words a éarwv...
Th admroxpnoe: are a parenthetical com-
ment.

Ta evta\para k.t.A.| The absence of
both preposition and article before &-
SackaXias shows that the two words
are closely connected. They are placed
here in their proper order ; for évra\-
para describes the source of authority
and é:dacxadias the medium of com-
munication. The expression is taken
ultimately from Isaiah xxix. 13, where
the words run in the Lxx, parny 68¢€
o¢Bovrai pe, Sudaokovres EvrdApara av-
Operav Kat StOackadias. The Evan-
gelists (Matt. xv. 9, Mark vii. 7), quot-
ing the passage, substitute in the latter
clause éidackovres SidacKarias evTad-
pata avOpérav.

The coincidences in St Paul’s lan-
guage here with our Lord’s words as
related in the Gospels (Matt. xv.
1—20, Mark vii. I—23) are striking,
and suggest that the Apostle had this
discourse in his mind. (1) Both alike
argue against these vexatious ordi-
nances from the perishableness of
meats. (2) Both insist upon the indif-
ference of such things in themselves.
In Mark vii. 19 the Evangelist em-
phasizes the importance of our Lord’s

te gOS TE,

II. 23]

words on this occasion, as practically
abolishing the Mosaic distinction of
meats by declaring all alike to be
clean (xa@apifav; see the note on ver.
16). (3) Both alike connect such or-
dinances with the practices condemn-
ed in the prophetic denunciation of
Isaiah.

23. ‘ All such teaching is worthless.
It may bear the semblance of wisdom ;
but it wants the reality. It may make
an officious parade of religious service ;
it may vaunt its humility; it may
treat the body with merciless rigour ;
but it entirely fails in its chief aim.
It is powerless to check indulgence of
the flesh.’

ativa| ‘which sort of things” Not
only these particular precepts, 7) awry
k.7.A., but all precepts falling under
the same category are condemned.
For this force of drwa as distinguished
from a, see the notes on Gal. iv. 24,
vy. 19, Phil. iv. 3. The antecedent
here is not éytd\para kcal didacxa-
Alas «.7.A., but the prohibitions given
in ver. 21.

Aoyov pev x.7.A.] ‘having a reputa-
tion for wisdom,’ but not the reality.
The corresponding member, which
should be introduced by dé, is sup-
pressed; the oppositive clause being
postponed and appearing later in a
new form, ov« év tipy Tur Kst.rA. Such
suppressions are common in classical
writers, more especially in Plato; see
Kithner § 531, 11. p. 813 sq., Jelf § 766,
and comp. Winer § lxiii. p. 719 sq.
Jerome therefore is not warranted in
attributing St Paul’s language here to
‘imperitia artis grammaticae’ (Zpist.
cxxi, Op. I. p. 884). On the contrary
it is just the license which an adept
in a language would be more likely
to take than a novice.

In this sentence Acyov éyovra co-
gias is best taken as a single predicate,
so that é€orw is disconnected from
€xovra. Otherwise the construction
€otw €exovra (for eyes) would be

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 205

ef , , \ af /
Barwa éotw Doyov pev ExovTa codias év ébeNoGpn-

supported by many parallels in the
Greek Testament ; see Winer § xlv.
Pp. 437. |

The phrase Aoyov exe tivds, 80 far
as I have observed, has four meanings.
(A) Two as applied to the thinking
subject. (i) ‘To take account of, to hold
in account, to pay respect to’: e.g.

Asch. Prom. 231 Bporay Sé tév ra-

Aaurapev Aoyov ovK €ayev ovdéva, De-
mosth. de Coron. § 199 «imep 7 OdEns
i) Tpoyovwy 4) rod péAXovros aldvos
eixe Aoyov, Plut. Vit. Philop. 18 més
dEtov éxeivou oyov exew Tod dvdpis
k.t.A. (ii) ‘To possess the reason or
account or definition of, ‘to have a
scientific knowledge of’; Plato Gorg.
p. 465 A réxvnv dé adrny ov pnue etvac
GAN’ epurreipiav, Ott ovK Exet Aoyov ov-
déva Gv mpoopépet, omoia arra thy pi-
ow éoriv, and so frequently. These
two senses are recognised by Aristotle,
Eth. Nic. i. 13 (p. 1102), where he
distinguishes the meaning of the ex-
pressions €yewv Adyov Tod warpos 7) Tav
didov and éyew Aoyov tav pabntikav.
(B) Two as applied to the object of
thought. (iii) ‘To have the credit or
reputation of, as here. This sense of
éxew Aoyor, ‘to be reputed,’ is more
commonly found with an infinitive:
e.g. Plato Zpin. 987 B adrés ’Adpodi-
Tns elvat oxédov exe Adyor. (iv) ‘To
fulfil the definition of, to possess the
characteristics, to have the nature of’ ;
e.g. Philo Vit. Cont. 4 (1. p..477) éxa-
tepov S€ mnyns oyoy ¢yov, Plut. Mor.
p. 637 D ro d€ wo ovte dpyijs Eyer Ao-
yov, od yap vdiorarat mparov, ovre
ddov Pvaw, dredes ydp ear, ib. 640 F.
Sei mpos TO euburevopevov xwpas Adyov
éxew To SeEdpevov. The senses of do-
yov €xew With other constructions, or
as used absolutely, are very various,
e.g. ‘to be reasonable,’ ‘to hold dis-
course,’ ‘to bear a ratio, etc., but do
not come under consideration here.
Nor again does such an expression as
Piut. Mor. p. 550 0 pyre tov Aoyov
éxev Tov voxodérov, ‘not being in pos-

206

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(rie

/ \ ae 44 \ ’ 5 , / >
oKELa Kal TaTEWoppocuy [Kat] ADELOELA TWUATOS, OUK

session of, not knowing, the intention
of the legislator’; for the definite ar-
ticle removes it from the category of
the cases considered.

ev €GehoOpnoxeia]l ‘in volunteered,
self-imposed, officious, supererogatory
service. One or both of these two
ideas, (i) ‘ excessive readiness, officious
zeal,’ (ii) ‘affectation, unreality,’ are in-
volved in this and similar compounds;
e.g. €Oehodovreia, eGehoxaknorts, €Oedo-
kivduvos, €Oehoxwpety, €Oedopnrap, €be-
Aompogevos : these compounds being
used most frequently, though not al-
ways (as this last word shows), in a
bad sense. This mode of expression
was naturalised in Latin, as appears
from Augustine /pist. cxlix. 27 (IL
p. 514) ‘Sic enim et vuigo dicitur qui
divitem affectat thelodives, et qui sa-
pientem thelosapiens, et cetera hujus-
modi.’ Epiphanius, when writing of

the Pharisees, not content with the -

word here supplied by St Paul, coins
a double compound ¢@cAomepioooOpn-
oxeia, Haer. i. 16 (p. 34).

tarewoppoovyvy| The word is here
disparaged by its connexion, as in ver.
18 (see the note there). The force of
eGeho- may be regarded as carried on
to it. Real genuine rarewodppocivy
is commended below; ili. 12.

apewWela odparos| ‘ hard treatment
of thebody. The expression apecd<iv
Tov ooduaros is not uncommon, being
used most frequently, not as here of
ascetic discipline, but rather of cou-
rageous exposure to hardship and
danger in war, e.g. Lysias Or. Fun.
25, Joseph. B. J. iii. 7. 18, Lucian
Anach. 24, Plut. Vit. Pericl. 10; in
Plut. Mor. p. 137 0 however, of a stu-
dent’s toil, and 2b. p. 135 E, more gene-
rally of the rigorous demands made
by the soul on the body. The substan-
tive dpeidera or aperdia does not often
occur. On the forms in -eva and -ia
derived from adjectives in -ns see
Buttmann Ausf. Gramm. § 119, U1.
p. 416 sq. The great preponderance

of manuscript authority favours. the
form adpedeia here: but in such ques-
tions of orthography the fact car-
ries less weight than in other matters.
The kat before ddecdeig should proba-
bly be omitted; in which case dpe:dela
becomes an instrumental dative, ex-
plaining Aoyov ¢yovra codias. While
the insertion would naturally occur to
scribes, the omission gives more point
to the sentence. The é@edodpnoxeia
kat tamewoppoatvn as the religious
elements are thus separated from the
ageideca cdparos as the practical rule.

ovK é€v Tinh K.T-A.] ‘yet not really of
any value to remedy indulgence of
the flesh.” So interpreted the words
supply the oppositive clause to Adyov
pev €xovta codias, as the presence of

the negative ove naturally suggests.

If the sentence had been undisturbed,
this oppositive clause would naturally
have been introduced by 8é, but the
interposition of év éOedoOpyokeia x.7.A.
has changed its form by a sort of at-
traction. For this sense of éy tiuq
comp. Lucian Merc. cond. 17 ra Kawa
TOV vToOnarev év TIA TLL Kal émipe-
Aeia e€otiv: similarly Hom. J/. ix. 319
ev O¢€ in tiuy Kt. The preposition
mpos, like our English ‘for,’ when used
after words denoting utility, value,
sufficiency, etc, not uncommonly in-
troduces the object to check or prevent
or cure which the thing is to be em-
ployed. And even though utility may
not be directly expressed in words,
yet if the idea of a something to be
remedied is present, this preposition
is freely used notwithstanding. See
Isocr. Phil. 16 (p. 85) mpos rovs BapBa-
pous xpnooy, Arist. H. A. iii. 21 (p.
522) ovpdéper mpos Tas Stappolas 7 rot-
avtn padiora, de Respir. 8 (p. 474)
avaykn yiveoOa xarawuéw, ef péAdet
tevEeoOat cwrnpias’ Toto yap Bonbet
mpos ravTny THY poopay, Lucian Pisce.
27 XpHoysov your kal mpos exkeivous TO
TouovTov, Galen Op. XII. p. 399 XpopE-
ve ye Tive TpOs TO maOos Gpkreiw orTe-

ep ee

IT. 23]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

207

> “a A \ \ ~ ,
a é
€y Tin TlWL TpPOS TANG MOVHY THS TaPKOS

att, p. 420 rod Sovros avra mpobs dho-
mekias Padakpacets K.T.A., P. 430 ovve-
Onxav...pdppaxa mpos peovoas tpixas,
p- 476 Bpaxvrarny exovre Svvapw os
mpos TO Tpokeipevoy cUumTT@pa, p. 482
rovTo Sێ kal mpos Ta Ev OAM TO Topate
e£avOnparaapodpa xypyowpor eoriy,p.5 14.
xpnoréov S€ mat Tots dvayeypappevois
BonOnpact mpos Tas ywopévas bv eyKav-
ow keadaryias, p. 601 KaAAorov mpos
avrny dppakoy éyxeopmevov vapd.ivov
pupov. These examples from Galen
are only a fewoutofprobably some hun-
dreds, which might be collected from
the treatise in which they occur, the
de Compositione Medicamentorum.

The language, which the Colossian
false teachers would use, may be in-
ferred from the account given by Philo
of a Judaic sect of mystic ascetics,
who may be regarded, not indeed as
their direct, but as their collateral
ancestors (see p. 86, note 2, p. 94), the
Therapeutes of Egypt; de Vit. Cont.
§ 4 (I. p. 476 sq.) tpupaow iro oo-
dias éoridpevor TAovoiws kal apOdvas
Ta Soypara xopnyovons, ws kal...uo-
Aus Ov &E yuepdv dmoyever Oat Tpo-
dijs avayxaias...ovrovvrat 8¢...dprov ev-
TEA, Kal Wor ddes...70Tov Vdep vapya-
Tialov avTois éoTiv...wAnOpovnyv ws
exOpov te Kat émiBovdov éxrpemopevor
Wuxns Kat odparos. St Paul appa-
rently has before him some similar
exposition of the views of the Colos-
sian heretics, either in writing or
(more probably) by report from Epa-
phras. In reply he altogether denies
the claims of this system to the title
of copia; he disputes the value of
these ddyuara; he allows that this
mAnopovn is the great evil to be check-
ed, the fatal disease to be cured; but
he will not admit that the remedies
prescribed have any substantial and
lasting efficacy.

The interpretation here offered is
not new, but it has been strangely
overlooked or despised. The pas-
sages adduced will I trust show the

groundlessness of objections which
have been brought against it owing to
the use of the preposition; and in all
other respects it seems to be far pre-
ferable to any rival explanation which
has been. suggested. The favourite
interpretations in ancient or modern
times divide themselves into two
classes, according to the meaning as-
signed to mpos mAncporny tis capKos.
(1) It is explained in a good sense:
‘ to satisfy the reasonable wants of the
body.’ In this case ovk ev tipq rivi is
generally interpreted, ‘ not holding it
(the body) im any honour. So the
majority of the fathers, Greek and
Latin. This has the advantage of
preserving the continuity of the words
OUK €v TYsn TW Mpos TANTPOVAY K.T.A. :
but it assigns an impossible sense to
mAnocpovn tis capkos. For mAnopovy
always denotes ‘repletion,’ ‘surfeit-
ing,’ ‘excessive indulgence, and can-
not be used of a reasonable attention
to the physical cravings of nature; as
Galen says, Op. XV. p. 113 mavrav clw-
Oorev ov povoy larpdy adda kal Tay GA-
Aov “EAAjvey ro tis mAnoTpPoVAS Gvopa
paANov mas éemipépew rais vmrepBo-
Aais THS GUpMET POV TocoOTHTOS:
and certainly neither the Apostle por
the Colossian ascetics were likely to
depart from this universal rule. To
the long list of passages quoted in
Wetstein may be added such refer-
ences a8 Philo Leg. ad Gat. § 1 (1.
p. 546), Clem. Hom. viii. 15, Justin
Dial. 126, Dion. Alex. in Huseb. HE.
vii. 25; but they might be increased
to any extent. (2) A bad sense is
attached to mAncporvn, as usage de-
mands. And here two divergent in-
terpretations have been put forward.
(i) The proper continuity of the sen-
tence is preserved, and the words ovx
€v Tih TWh POS TANTpOVIY THs TapKos
are regarded as an exposition of the
doctrine of the false teachers from
their own point of view. So Theo-
dore of Mopsuestia, od rivioy vopifor-

208
be a

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(III. x

> > iL; a al ’
*Et ovv cuvyyepOntre TH Xpiotw, Ta avw G-

~ "e; , ~ ~ on
TEITE, OV O Xpiaros Eat ev OEELa TOV CeEeov Kabypevos:

tas TO Oia mavt@y mANpody THY odpka,
adda yap paddoyr aipoupéevous améxer Oat
TOY TOAAGY Sia THY TOU vopov Tapado-
ow. This able expositor however is
evidently dissatisfied, for he intro-
duces his explanation with the words
doades. pév eott, BovAera dé eimeiv
k.7.A.; and his explanation has not
been adopted by others. Hither the
sentence, so interpreted, becomes flat
and unmeaning, though it is obviously
intended to clinch the whole matter ;
or the Apostle is made to confirm the
value of the very doctrines which he
is combating. (ii) The sentence is
regarded as discontinuous; and it is
interpreted, ‘not of any real value’

(or ‘not consisting in anything com- *

mendable, or ‘not holding the body
in any honour’) but ‘tending to gra-
tify the carnal desires’ or ‘mind.’
This in some form or other is almost
universally adopted by modern inter-
preters, and among the ancients is
found in the commentator Hilary.
The objections to it are serious, (a)
The dislocation of the sentence is in-
explicable. There is no indication
either in the grammar or in the voca-
bulary that a separate and oppositive
clause begins with mpos mAnoporny
x.7.A., but on the contrary everything
points to an unbroken continuity. (8)
The sense which it attaches to mAno-
pov) THs oapkos is either forced and
unnatural, or it makes the Apostle
say what he could not have said. If
mAnopov”y THs capkos could have the
sense which Hilary assigns to it, ‘sa-
gina carnalis sensus traditio humana
est,’ or indeed if it could mean ‘the
mind of the flesh’ in any sense (as it
is generally taken by modern com-
mentators), this is what St Paul might
well have said. But obviously wAyo-
povt) THs capkos conveys a very differ-
ent idea from such expressions as ro
gvovodteba vd Tov voos THs Tapkos

(ver. 18) or rd pdrmnpa ths capkos
(Rom. viii. 6, 7), which include pride,
self-sufficiency, strife, hatred, bigotry,
and generally everything that is earth-
bound and selfish. On the other hand,
if rAnopo ths capKds be taken in its
natural meaning, as applying to coarse
sensual indulgences, then St Paul
could not have said without qualifi-
cation, that this rigorous asceticism
conduced mpds mAncpovay tis capKos.
Such language would defeat its own
object by its extravagance.

III. 1—4. ‘Ifthis beso; if ye were
raised with Christ, if ye were trans-
lated into heaven, what follows? Why
you must realise the change. All your
aims must centre in heaven, where
reigns the Christ who has thus ex-
alted you, enthroned on God’s right
hand. All your thoughts must abide
in heaven, not on the earth. For, I
say it once again, you have nothing to
do with mundane things: you died,
died once for all to the world: you
are living another life. This life in-
deed is hidden now: it has no out-
ward splendour as men count splen-
dour; for it is a life with Christ, a life
in God. But the veil will not always
shroud it. Christ, our life, shall be
manifested hereafter; then ye also
shall be manifested with Him and the
world shall see your glory.’

I. Ei ody ouvnyépOnre x.t.r.] ‘If
then ye were raised, not ‘have been
raised.” The aorist cuvnyépOnre, like
ameOavere (ii. 20), refers to their bap-
tism; and the eZ odv here is a resump-
tion of the ein ii. 20. The sacra-
ment of baptism, as administered in
the Apostolic age, involved a twofold
symbolism, a death or burial and
a resurrection: see the note on ii.
12. In the rite itself these were re-
presented by two distinct acts, the
disappearance beneath the water and
the emergence from the water: but

IJ. 2, 3]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 209

2 see 4 ~ \ es Tee, | ~ ~ 3,2 , ,

Ta avw Ppoveite, py Ta emi THS yns. 3dmefavere yap,
\ al / \ ~ na lod o

Kal 4 Con Uvuav KexpuTTat auv TW XpicTta ev TH Cee

in the change typified by the rite they
are two aspects of the same thing,
‘like the concave and convex in a
circle,’ to use an old simile. The ne-
gative side—the death and burial—
implies the positive side—the resur-
rection. Hence the form of the Apo-
stle’s resumption, ef ameOavere, ei ody
ournyéepOnre.

The change involved in baptism, if
truly realised, must pervade a man’s
whole nature. It affects not only his
practical conduct, but his intellectual
conceptions also. It is nothing less
than a removal into a new sphere of
being. He is translated from earth
to heaven; and with this translation
his point of view is altered, his stan-
dard of judgment is wholly changed.
Matter is to him no longer the great
enemy ; his position towards it is one
of absolute neutrality. Ascetic rules,
ritual ordinances, have ceased to have
any absolute value, irrespective of
their effects. All these things are of
the earth, earthy. The material, the
transitory, the mundane, has given
place to the moral, the eternal, the
heavenly.

ta ave (nreire xr.d.| ‘Cease to
concentrate your energies, your
thoughts on mundane ordinances, and
realise your new and heavenly life, of
which Christ is the pole-star,

ev Se&ta x.t.d.| ‘being seated on the
right hand of God, where xaOyjpevos
must not be connected with éorw,;
see the note on drdxpudor, ii. 3. This
participial clause is pertinent and
emphatic, for the session of Christ
implies the session of the believer
also ; Ephes. ii. 4—6 6 d€ Geds...1juas...
ouve(woTroingey....--Kal Tupyeipev Kal
cuvekadiaev ev Tois eroupavios év
Xpior “Incod x.r.d. ; comp. Rey. iii. 21
6 wukav, Soow avT@ Kabicat per eyovd
€v t@ Opovm pov, Os Kayo évixnoa kal
exabioa pera TOU TaTpos pov év TO

COL.

Opdve avrod, in the message addressed
to the principal church of this dis-
trict: see above, p. 42. BaBai, says
Chrysostom, rod rov votv amyyaye Tov
Npéerepoy ; Tas hpovnparos adtovs érAn-
pooe peyddov ; ovk Hpker Ta dv ei-
meiv, ovdé, OF 6 Xpioros éatw, GAG
ti; “Ev de&a rod Geod xabjpuevos’ éxei-
Gev Kowrdy Thy yiv opav mapeckevace.

2. ta dvw] The same expression
repeated for emphasis; ‘You must
not only seek heaven; you must also
think heaven. For the opposition of
Ta Gvw and ra emi rijs ys in connexion
with gdpoveiv, comp. Pnil. iii. 19, 20
oi ra Emiyeta Ppovodrres, huav yap
TO ToXitevpa €v ovpavois Umapxet;
see also Theoph. ad Avtol. ii. 17.
Extremes meet. Here the Apostle
points the antithesis to controvert a
Gnostic asceticism : in the Philippian
letter he uses the same contrast to
denounce an Epicurean sensualism.
Both alike are guilty of the same fun-
damental error; both alike concen-
trate their thoughts on material, mun-
dane things.

3. ameOavere] ‘ye died’ in baptism.
The aorist awedavere denotes the past
act; the perfect xéxpumra: the perma-
nent effects. For dme@avere see the
notes on ii. 12, 20.

kéxpurra] ‘is hidden, is buried
out of sight, to the world.’ The Apo-
stle’s argument is this: ‘When you
sank under the baptismal water, you
disappeared for ever to the world.
You rose again, it is true, but you
rose only. to God. The world hence-
forth knows nothing of your new life,
and (as a consequence) your new life
must know nothing of the world’
‘Neque Christum,’ says Bengel, ‘ne-
que Christianos novit mundus ; ac ne
Christiani quidem planeseipsos’ ; comp.
Joh, xiv. 17—I9 ro mvedpa tis dAn-
Geias 6 6 KOopos ov Svvarat AaBeiy, Sri
ot @ewpet adro ovdé yivdaKes

14

210 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(IIT. 4

4OTav O Xpiords pavepwbn, 1 Cony NOV, TOTE Kal
Uuels cu avTo dhavepwhijcerbe év d0£n.

fe,

4. 4 fo vuar.

avro, vueis [Sé] yevaoKere avTO...6 Ko-
apos pe ovK ere Oewpet, vyets O€ Oew-
peiré pe’ OTe eym Co, Kal tpets
(noere.

4. 6 Xptotos] A fourth occur-
rence of the name of Christ in this
context; comp. ver. 2 T@ Xpior@, oO
Xpioros, ver. 3 ovy To Xpioro. A
pronoun would have been more natu-
ral, but less emphatic.

7 (or nuov| This is an advance on
the previous statement, 7 (on vuov
kéxpuntat civ To Xpioro, in two re-
spects: (1) It is not enough to have
said that the life is shared ezth Christ.
The Apostle declares that the life zs

Christ. Comp. I Joh. vy. 126 éxov TOv®

viov exer THY Conv, Ign. Lphes. 7 ev @a-
varo Con cn Bev (of Christ), Smyrn.
4 "Inoods Xpurros TO ahr Ouvov 9 npav (nV,
Ephes. 3 \ncots Xpioros To ddvaxptrov
nuov hv, Magn. 1 “Inoovd Xpicrov tow
Starravros jay Cyv. (2) For dpuar is
substituted judy. The Apostle hastens
to include himself among the reci-
pients of the bounty. For this cha-
racteristic transition from the second
person to the first see the note on ii.
13. The reading dyodyv here has very
high support, and on this account I
have given it as an alternative; but
it is most probably a transcriber’s cor-
rection, for the sake of uniformity
with the preceding.

Tore kal vpets k.7.A.] ‘The veil which
now shrouds your higher life from
others, and even partly from your-
selves, will then be withdrawn. The
world which persecutes, despises, ig-
nores now, will then be blinded with
the dazzling glory of the revelation.’
Comp. 1 Joh, iii. I, 2 6 kdapos ov
yiweoket nuas, Ore ovK eyvo avror.
dyamnrol, viv trexva Qeod eopéev, kal
o’rw épavepobn ti ecopeba’ otdaper
bre éay havepwb7, Sport atta éod-
peba x.r.A., Clem. Rom. 50 of havepa-

Onoovra: é€v TH emtoxomn Tis Baoidelas
Tov Xptorov.

ev d0&] Joh. xvii. 22 rnv So€av iy
dédaxas por, SéSwxa avrots, Rom. viii. 17
iva kat ovvdoéacbapev.

5—11. ‘So then realise this death
to the world; kill all your earthly
members. Is it fornication, impurity
of whatever kind, passion, evil desire ?
Or again, is it that covetousness which
makes a religion, an idolatry, of greed ?
Do not deceive yourselves. For all
these things God’s wrath will surely
come. In these sins ye, like other
Gentiles, indulged in times past, when
your life was spent amidst them. But
now everything is changed. Now you
also must put away not this or that
desire, but all sins whatsoever. An-
ger, wrath, malice, slander, filthy
abuse; banish it from your lips. Be
not false one to another in word or
deed; but cast off for ever the old
man with his actions, and put on the
new, who is renewed from day to day,
growing unto perfect knowledge and
refashioned after the image of his
Creator. In this new life, in this
regenerate man, there is not, there
cannot be, any distinction of Greek or
Jew, of circumcision or uncircumci-
sion; there is no room for barbarian,
for Scythian, for bond or free. Christ
has displaced, has annihilated, all
these; Christ is Himself all things
and in all things,’

5. The false doctrine of the Gnos-
tics had failed to check sensual indul-
gence (ii. 23). The true doctrine of
the Apostle has power to kill the
whole carnal man. The substitution
of a comprehensive principle for
special precepts—of the heavenly life
in Christ for a code of minute ordi-
nances—at length attains the end
after which the Gnostic teachers have
striven, and striven in vain.

ee

Ee Ts

III. 5]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 211

7 Ss A , A > \ lanl nw ,
5Nexpwoate ovv Ta meAn Ta ETL THS Yns* TopvEeLay,
ny A Ney 4 \ \
axabapoiav, malos, émiOupiay KaKxyv, Kat THy meEov-

Nexpwoare ovv] i.e. ‘Carry out this
principle of death to the world (ii. 20
ameOavere, iii, 3 dmeOavere), and kill
everything that is mundane and car-
nal in your being.’

Ta péAn «.7.A.| Each person has a
twofold moral personality. There is
in him the ‘old man,’ and there is in
him also ‘the new’ (vv. 9, 10). The
old man with all his members must
be pitilessly slain. It is plain that ra
peAn here is used, like av@pemos in
ver. 9, not physically, but morally.
Our actual limbs may be either ra emi
Tis ys OY Ta €v Tois ovpdvots, accord-
ing as they are made instruments for
the world or for Christ: just as we—
our whole being—may identify our-
selves with the madatos avépwros or
with the véos dv@épwmos of our twofold
potentiality. For this use of the phy-
sical, as a symbol of the moral of
which it is the potential instrument,
compare’ Matt. v. 29 sq. «i dé 6 6bOad-
pos cov o Sekwos oxavdarifer oe, e£eXe
avTov K.T.A.

[I have ventured to punctuate
after ra ént rijs ys. Thus mopveiav
K.T.r. are prospective accusatives,
which should be governed directly by
some such word as drdéecGe. But
several dependent clauses interpose ;
the last of these incidentally suggests
a contrast between the past and the
present; and this contrast, predomi-
nating in the Apostle’s mind, leads to
an abrupt recasting of the sentence,
vuvi dé dmd0ecGe Kal tpeis Ta Tavra,
in disregard of the original construc-
tion. This opposition of roré and viv
has a tendency to dislocate the-con-
struction in St Paul, as in i. 22 yuri de
dmroxarnAAaynre (Or droxarjAAaker),i. 26
vov d€ épavepodbn: see the note on this
latter passage. For the whole run of
the sentence (the parenthetic relative
clauses, the contrast of past and pre-
sent, and the broken construction)

compare Ephes. ii. I—5 kat vpas...év
als TOTe...€Vv OLS Kal---TOTE...65€ eds...
kal dvras nas cvveCworoinger.

With the common punctuation the
interpretation is equally awkward,
whether we treat ra péAn and zop-
veiay x.7.X. a8 in direct apposition, or
as double accusatives, or in any other
way. The case is best put by Seve-
rianus, capka Kadei Thy auapriay, Hs Kat
Ta péeAn KaraptOpel...6 madaids avOpw-
wos eoTw TO Ppovnpa Td Tis dpaprias,
HéAn O€ avTov ai mpakers THY dyaprn-
parev; but this is an evasion of the
difficulty, which consists in the direct
apposition of the instruments and the
activities, from whatever point they
are viewed.

mopveiav x.7.A.| The general order
is from the less comprehensive to the
more comprehensive. Thus zopveia is
a special kind of uncleanness, while
dxa@apcia is uncleanness in any form,
Ephes. v. 3 mopveia b€ xai dxadapcia
maca ; comp. Gal. v. 19 mopveia, dxa-
Oapcia, doédyeva, With the note there.
Thus again wa9os, though frequently
referring to this class of sins (Kom. i.
26, 1 Thess. iv. 5), would include other
base passions which do not fall under
the category of dxadapoia, as for in-
stance gluttony and intemperance.

mabos, émOupiav] The two words
oceur together in 1 Thess. iv. 5 yu ev
made. ériOupias. So ina passage closely
resembling the text, Gal. v. 24 of d¢
Tov Xptorod "Incod tiv capxa éoravpw-
cay coy Tois maOnuacw Kal Tais émOv-
pias. The same vice may be viewed
28 a ma0os from its passive and an ém-
Ovpia from its active side. The word
emtOupia is not used here in the re-
stricted sense which it has e.g. in
Arist. Eth. Nic. ii. 4, where it ranges
with anger, fear, etc., being related
to mados as the species to the genus
(see Gal. 1. c. note). In the Greek
Testament ér:dvpia has a much more

14—2

212

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[III. 6

e/ 2 ely ts
eFiav, itis éotiv eidwrodaTpEia, “Ov a EpxEeTa 1 6pyn

comprehensive sense; e.g. Joh. viii. 44
tas é€mOupias Tod matpos vpav Oédere
motv. Here, if anything, émOupia
is wider than maOos. While mados in-
cludes all ungovernable affections, éz-
6vpia Kaxy reaches to all evil longings.
"Ido, says Chrysostom, YEVIRGS TO Tay
eimre® mavra yap emOupia kan, BackKa-
via, opyn, Avy. The epithet is added
because émidupia is capable of a good
sense: comp. I Cor. x. 6 emOupnras
KaK@v.

kat thy wreoveciav] ‘and especially
covetousness, Impurity and covet-
ousness may be said to divide between
them nearly the whole domain of hu-
man selfishness and vice; ‘Si avaritia
prostrata est, exsurgit libido’ (Cypr.
de Mort. 3). The one has been already
dealt with; the other needs now to be
specially denounced; comp. Ephes.
V. 3 mopveia 8€ Kat dxaOapcia maca 7
mAeovegia. * Homo extra Deum, says
Bengel (on Rom. i. 29), ‘quaerit pabu-
jum in creatura materiali vel per vo-
luptatem vel per avaritiam.’ Comp.
Test. xii Patr. Jud. 18 dvAdkacbe
oty, Téxva ov, GTO THs wopvelas Kal THs
idapyupias...6Te Tadta ddiota vopov
cov. Similarly Lysis Pythag. 4 (Epi-
stol. Graec. p. 602, ed. Hercher) ovo-
pata & av avroy [i.e. the vices]
mparov emehOdv Tas parépas axpaciay
Te Kal mAeoveElav’ audw dé modvyovor
mwepuxavtt. It must be remembered
that mAcoveéia is much wider than
giAapyvpia (see Trench WV. 7. Syn.
§ xxiv. p. 77 aq.), which itself is called
pita mavtev Tov Kaxoy (I ‘Tim. vi. Io),

The attempt to give mAcoveEia here
and in other passages the sense of ‘im-
purity’ (see e.g. Hammond on Rom.
i. 29) is founded on a misconception.
The words mAcovexreiv, mreoveEia, wiil
sometimes be used in relation to sins
of uncleanness, because such may be
acts of injustice also. Thus adultery
is not only impurity, but it is robbery
also: hence 1 Thess. iv. 6 76 jy vep-
Bawew kat weovexrety ey TH TMpdyyare

Tov ddedkpov avrov (see the note
there). In other passages again there
will be an accidental connexion; e.g.
Ephes. iv. 19 eis épyaciay dxabapcias
maons €v meoveéia, i.e. ‘with greedi-
ness,’ ‘with entire disregard for the
rights of others.’ But nowhere do
the words in themselves suggest this
meaning. Here the particles cai ryv
show that a new type of sin is intro-
duced with wicovefiav: and in the
parallel passage Ephes. v. 3 (quoted
above) the same distinction is indi-
cated by the change from the con-
junctive particle cai to the disjunctive
7. It is an error to suppose that this
sense of mAcoveEia is supported by
Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 12 (p. 551 sq.)
as yap y mheovegia Topveta Aeyeral, TH
avTapkela evayTtoupérn. On the con-
verse error of explaining dxkaapoia to
mean ‘greediness,’ ‘covetousness,’ see
the note on 1 Thess. ii. 3.

qris K.T.A.] ‘for tt its idolatry’:
comp. Ephes. v. 5 mAeovéxrns, 6 (or 6s)
eotw e€iOwdoAdarpns, Polyc. Phil. 11
‘Si quis non abstinuerit se ab avari-
tia, ab idololatria coinquinabitur’ (see
Philippians p. 63 on the misunder-
standing of this passage). The covet-
ous man sets up another object of
worship besides God. There is a sort
of religious purpose, a devotion of the
soul, to greed, which makes the sin
of the miser so hateful. The idea of
avarice as a religion may have been
suggested to St Paul by our Lord’s
words, Matt. vi. 24 ov dvvacbe Gc@
SovAevew Kal paywva, though it is a
inistake to suppose that Mammon was
the name of a Syrian deity. It ap-
pears however elsewhere in Jewish
writers of this and later ages: eg.
Philo de Mon. i. 2 (1. p. 214 sq.) mav-
Taxobev pev dpyvptov Kal xpuciov ékio-
pifovar, TO dé mopic bev ws Gyadpa Oeiov
ev advrots no avpodvAakovowy (with the
whole context), and Shemoth Rabba
fol. 121. 3 ‘Qui opes suas multiplicat
per foenus, ille est idololatra’ (with

III. 7, 8]

>

tov Qeov*

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

213

Q \ ~ , , 74
7év ois Kal Upels TEpLETATHTATE MOTE, OTE
8

yn 2 4 Ps th SE ae 4 Vine ~ \ /
eCire év TovTos® *vuvi dé droderGe Kal Uuels Ta TavTa,

other passages quoted by Wetstein
and Schéttgen on Ephes. v. 5). St
Chrysostom, Hom. in Joann. lav
(viIL. p. 392 sq.), enlarges on the cult
of wealth—the consecration of it, the
worship paid to it, the sacrifices de-
manded by it: 7 d€ didapyupia déyer,
Cdcdv pot THY cavToU Wuxny, Kal TelBec*
épas otovs €xer Bapods, ota dSéxerau. Ov-
para (p. 393). The passage in Test.
ait Patr. Jud. 18 4 dirapyupia mpos
eidoAa ddnyei is no real parallel to St
Paul’s language, though at first sight
it seems to resemble it. For jris,
‘seeing that it,’ see the note on Phil.
iv. 3.

6,7. &’ ad x«r.r.] The received
text requires correction in two points.
(1) It inserts the words émi rovs viovs
ths areeias after tov Ccod. Though
this insertion has preponderating sup-
port, yet the words are evidently in-
terpolated from the parallel passage,
Ephes. v. 6 da ratra yap ¢pxerar 7
dpy Tod Geod emi Tovs viods THs aret-
Ocias. We are therefore justified in
rejecting them with other authorities,
few in number but excellent in cha-
racter. See the detached note on va-
rious readings. When the sentence is
thus corrected, the parallelism of 5’
d...év ois xai...may be compared with
Ephes. i. 11 €v & kal exAnpdOnper...ev
kal tpeis...€v @ kal mucrevoavres eoppa-
yicOnre, and ii. 21, 22 év & maca [7 |
oikodopt...€v @ Kal tpyeis cuvorKodo-
peicbe. (2) The vast preponder-
ance of authority obliges us to substi-
tute rovrors for avrois.

6. €pxera:] This may refer either
to the present and continuous dispen-
sation, or to the future and final judg-
ment. The present ¢pyecGa is fre-
quently used to denote the certainty
of a future event, e.g. Matt. xvii. 11,
Joh. iv. 21, xiv. 3, whence 6 épxydpevos
is a designation of the Messiah: sce
Winer § xl. p. 332,

7. eévois «7.A.| The clause ért rods
viovs Ths dmeiecias having been struck
out, év ois must necessarily be neuter
and refer to the same as 6’ a. Inde-
pendently of the rejection of the
clause, this neuter seems more proba-
ble in itself than the masculine: for
(1) The expression mepirareiy év is
most commonly used of things, not of
persons, especially in this and the
companion epistle: iv. 5, Ephes. ii. 2,

‘10, iv. 17, V. 2; (2) The Apostle would

hardly denounce it as a sin in his Co-
lossian converts that they ‘ walked
among the sons of disobedience’; for
the Christian, though not of the world,
is necessarily in the world: comp. 1
Cor. v. 10. The apparent parallel,
Ephes. ii. 3 év ots Kat npets wavres ave-
orpabnuey more ev tais émiOupias Tis
capkos tov (where ois seems to be
masculine), does not hold, because the
addition év rais émOupias x.7.A. makes
all the difference. Thus the rejection
of the clause, which was decided by
textual considerations, is confirmed by
exegetical reasons.

kal vpeis |‘ ye, like the other heathen’
(i. 6 cat év dvyiv), but in the next
verse xal vyeis is rather ‘ye your-
selves,’ ‘ye notwithstanding your for-
mer lives,’ .

ore eCfire K.7.A.] ‘When ye lived in
this atmosphere of sin, when ye had
not yet died to the world’

ev rovtos| ‘in these things”? We
should have expected avrois, but
rovros is substituted as more empha-
tic and condemnatory: comp. Ephes.
vy. 6 dua ratra yap Epxerackr.A. The
two expressions (jv év and mepurareiv
év involve two distinct ideas, denoting
the condition of their life and the cha-
racter of their practice respectively.
Their conduct was conformable to
their circumstances. Comp. Gal. v. 25
ei (Spey mvevpari, mvevuare Kal ote

xe BE Ve

214

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[Ilf.9

’ , , , , | + ? ’

Opynys Gunov, Kakiay, Pracdypiay, aloypo\oyiay €K
A / es eae LAN Ma p) ’ i >

TOU GTOMATOS Uuwy' 9 un VyevderGe Ets GAAHAOUS* a7TEK-

8. The errors of the past suggest
the obligations of the present. Thus
the Apostle returns to the topic with
which the sentence commenced. But
the violence of the contrast has broken
up the grammar of the sentence; see
the note on ver. 5.

ra mavra| ‘not only those vices which
have been specially named before
(ver. 5), but al/ of whatever kind.’ The
Apostle accordingly goes on to spe-
cify sins of a wholly different type
from those already mentioned, sins
of uncharitableness, such as anger,
detraction, malice, and the like.

opynv, Ovpoyv] ‘anger, wrath. The
one denotes a more or less settled

feeling of hatred, the other a tumul- .

tuous outburst of passion. This dis-
tinction of the two words was fixed
chiefly by the definitions of the Stoics:
Diog. Laert. vii. 114 6 dé @upos ear
opy7 apxovevn. So Ammonius Oupos
pév éote mpookarpos, opyy: S€ modvxpo-
vios pynowxaxia, Greg. Naz, Carm. 34
(It. p. 612) Oupds pév €orw abpoos Céors
dpevos, opyn dé Oupos eppévov. They
may be represented in Latin by ira
and furor ; Senec. de Ira ii. 36 ‘ Aja-
cem in mortem egit furor, in furorem
ira,’ and Jerome in Ephes. iv. 31 ‘ Fu-
ror incipiens ira est’: see Trench
Nod SYN. & SERV, D.123'8q.. On
other synonymes connected with @v-
pos and opyy see the note on Ephes.
1VoGt.

kaxiav| ‘ malice, or ‘malignity,’ as
it may be translated in default of a
better word. Itis not (at least in the
New Testament) vice generally, but
the vicious nature which is bent on
doing harm to others, and is well de-
fined by Calvin (on Ephes. iv. 31) ‘ani-
ni pravitas, quae humanitati et aequi-
tatt est opposita.’ This will be evi-
dent from the connexion in which it
‘appears, e.g. Rom. i. 29, Eph. iv. 31,
Tit. iii, 3. Thus xaxia and rornpia

(which frequently occur together, e.g.
1 Cor. y. 8) only differ in so far as the
one denotes rather the vicious dispo-
sition, the other the active exercise of
it. The word is carefully investigated
in Trench W. 7. Syn. § xi. p. 35 sq.

Braodnpiav| ‘evil speaking, rail-
ing, slundering, as frequently, e.g.
Rom. iii. 8, xiv. 16, 1 Cor. iv. 13 (v. 1),
x. 30, Ephes. iv. 31, Tit. iii. 2, The
word has the same twofold sense, ‘ evil
speaking’ and ‘ blasphemy,’ in classi-
cal writers, which it has in the New
Testament.

aicxpodoyiay |‘ foul-mouthed abuse.’
The word, as used elsewhere, has two
meanings: (1) ‘ Filthy-talking, as de-
fined in Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 6 (p.
189 sq.), where it is denounced at
length: comp. Arist. Pol. vii. 17, Epict.
Man. 33, Plut. Mor. 9, and so com-
monly; (2) ‘Abusive language, as
6.2. Polyb.: Vill. 13.8, X11. 095-4, X30.
10.4. If the two senses of the word
had been quite distinct, we might have
had some difficulty in choosing be-
tween them here. The former sense
is suggested by the parallel passage
Ephes. v. 4 aioyporns kat pwpodoyia 7)
evtparedia; the second by the con-
nexion with BrAacdnyia here. But
the second sense is derived from the
first. The word can only mean ‘ abuse,’
when the abuse is ‘foul-mouthed.’
And thus we may suppose that both
ideas, ‘filthiness’ and ‘ evil-speaking,’
are included here.

Q. azmexdvodpevor x.t.r.] ‘ puiting
of? Do these aorist participles de-
scribe an action coincident with or
prior to the WevderGe? In other
words are they part of the command,
or do they assign the reason for the
command? Must they be rendered
‘ putting off, or ‘ seeing that ye did (at
your baptism) put off’? The former
seems the more probable interpreta-
tion; for (1) Though both ideas are

ODA OOO

IIL. to, 11]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 215

pee esievos TOV qWaNaLov avOpwrrov Guy Tais mpageow

au TOU ,

Els érriyvwow Kar elKOVa TOU KTiGaYTOS auTov"

found in St Paul, the imperative is the
more usual; e.g. Rom. xiii. 12 sq. droa-
peda ody Ta épya Tov okdrous, evdvaw-
pea dé ra Onda Tod pords.. .evdvoacbe
Tov Kupiov’ Inootv Xpuorov, Ephes. vi. 11
évdicacbe tiv mavorAiav With ver. 14
OTHTEe ovv...evdvodpevot k.T.A., I Thess.
vy. 8 mbopev evdveduevae xt, The
one exception is Gal. iii. 27 daou yap
eis Xpicrov éBanricOnre, Xpiorov €ve-
dSvcacbe. (2) The ‘putting on’ in
the parallel passage, Ephes. iv. 24, is
imperative, not affirmative, whether
we read évdtcacGa or évdvoacde.
(3) The participles here are followed
immediately by an imperative in the
context, ver. 12 évdtcacbe ovv, where
the idea seems to be the same. For
the synchronous aorist participle see
Winer § xly. p. 430. St Paul uses
dmexOvodpevor, evdvodpevor (not amek-
Svopevor, evdvopevor), for the same
reason for which he uses évdvcacGe
(not évdverGe), because it is a thing to
be done once jor all. For the double
compound dmexdvecba see the notes
on ii. II, 15.

madawy advOpwrov] as Rom. vi. 6,
Ephes. iv. 22. With this expression
compare 6 é£a, 6 €ow dvOpamos, Rom.
vii. 22, 2 Cor. iv. 16, Ephes. iii. 16; 6
Kpumros ths Kapdias avOpwmos, I Pet.
iii. 4; 6 puxpos pou avOpwros, ‘my in-
significance, Polycr. in Euseb. H. Z.
V. 24.

10. Tov veov KT. In Ephes. iv.
24 it is évdvcacOa Tov Katvov avOpo-
TOV. Of the two words véos and xa-
vos, the former refers solely to time,
the other denotes quality also ; the
one is new as being young, the other
new as being fresh: the one is op-
posed to long duration, the other to
effeteness; see Trench NV. 7’ Syn.
§ lx. p. 206. Here the idea which is
wanting to véos, and which xawés gives

Kal evdverapevor TOV veEov, TOV aluacaeOnpENaY

* Oqrou

in the parallel passage, is ‘more than
supplied by the addition rov dvaxa-
VOUMEVOY K.T.A.

The véos or xawos avOpwmos in these
passages is not Christ Himself, as the
parallel expression Xpiorov évdvca-

7$u might suggest, and as it is actu-

ally used in Ign. Lphes. 20 eis roy Kat-
vov avOparoy Incoty Xpiorov, but the
regenerate man formed after Christ.
The idea here is the same as in kaw)
kriows, 2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15: comp.
Rom. vi. 4. xaworns (ofs, Barnab. 16
éyevoueba kawvol, madww e& dpxns KTito-
HEVOL.

Tov avakawvovpevor] ‘which is ever
being renewed. The force of the pre-
sent tense is explained by 2 Cor. iv.
16 6 ow nuay [avOpwros] dvaxawotra
nHépa kalnpépa. Compare also the
use of the tenses in the parallel pas-
sage, Hphes. iv. 22 sq. dmvdécOa, ava-
veovobat, evdvoacGa. For the op- -
posite see Ephes. iv. 22 roy madaoy
avOpwroy tov Pberpopevor K.T.A.

eis ériyvaow] ‘unto perfect know-
ledge, the true knowledge in Christ,
as opposed to the false knowledge of
the heretical teachers. For the im-
plied contrast see above, pp. 44,99 sq.
(comp. the notes on i. 9, ii. 3), and for
the word eriyvaois the note on i. 9.
The words here are to be connected
closely with dyvaxawovpevov: comp.
Heb. vi. 6 madw dvaxatvicery eis pe-
ravo.av.

kar’ eixova k.r.A.] The reference is
to Gen. i. 26 kal eimev 6 Geos, Iou-
copev avOpwrov Kar’ eikdva tuerépav
K.T.A.; comp. ver. 28 kar’ eixova Geov
éroinaev avrov. See also Ephes. iv. 24
Tov Kawvov avOpwrov Tov KaTa Ocov KTI-
acbevra. This reference however does
not imply an identity of the creation
here mentioned with the creation of
Genesis, but only an analogy between

216

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(IIT. 11

sf J - \ \ 5)
ovk €u “ENAny kal “lovdatos, mepitopyn Kat axpoBuoTia,

the two. The spiritual man in each
believer's heart, like the primal man
in the beginning of the world, was
created after God’s image. The kav)
xtiots in this respect resembles the
apxaia xriots. The pronoun avrov
cannot be referred to anything else
but the véos advOpwmos, the regene-
rate man; and the aorist xricavros
(compare xricOévra in the parallel
passage Hphes. iv. 24) refers to the
time of this avayévynors in Christ.
See Barnab. 6 dvaxauvioas nuas év
Th apéevet TOY apapTiay emoinoeyv Nuas
GAXov tumov...ecav 67) dvarAaoaor-
Tos avrov nuas, after which Gen. i. 26
is quoted. The new birth was a re-
creation in God’s image; the subse-

quent life must be a deepening of this,

image thus stamped upon the man.
The allusion to Genesis therefore
requires us to understand rod kxricap-
ros of God, and not of Christ, as it is
taken by St Chrysostom and others ;
and this seems to be demanded also
by the common use of 6 kricas. But
if Christ is not 6 xricas, may He not be
intended by the eixaév tod xricavros ?
In favour of this interpretation it may
be urged (1) That Christ elsewhere is
called the eixay of God, i. 15, 2 Cor.
iv. 4; (2) That the Alexandrian school
interpreted the term in Gen. i. 26 as
denoting the Logos; thus Philo de
Mund. Op. 6 (I. p. § M) 76 dpyérumoy
mapaderypa, idea TaY idedy 6 Oeov Ao-
yos (comp. ib. $$ 7, 23, 24, 48), Pragm.
IL. p.625 M Ovnrov yap ovdev aretxona-
Ojvat mpos Tov avwrdrw Kal ratépa
TOY OAwY €dvvaTO, GAAG mpos Tov SevTE-
pov Ocdy bs eotw ékelvov Aoyos k.T.A.
Leg. Alleg. i. 31, 32 (1. p. 106 8q.).
Hence Philo speaks of the first man
as eixov eikovos (de Mund. Op. 6), and
aS maykadov mapade’ypatos mayKadov
pipnua (ib. § 48). A pregnant mean-
ing is thus given to xara, and xar’ éi-
cova is rendered ‘ after the fashion (or
pattern) of the Image,’ But this in-
terpretation seems very improbable in

St Paul; for (1) In the parallel pas-—
sage Ephes. iv. 24 the expression is
simply xara Occv, which may be re-
garded as equivalent tocar’ eixova rod
xticavros here; (2) The Alexandrian
explanation of Gen. i. 26 just quoted
is very closely allied to the Platonic
doctrine of ideas (for the eikoy, so in-
terpreted, is the archetype or ideal
pattern of the sensible world), and
thus it lies outside the range of those
conceptions which specially recom-
mended the Alexandrian terminology
of the Logos to the Apostles, as a fit
vehicle for communicating the truths
of Christianity.

II. ozov] i.e. ‘in this regenerate
life, in this spiritual region into which
the believer is transferred in Christ.’

ovk év.] ‘Not only does the dis-
tinction not exist, but it cannot exist. -
It is a mundane distinction, and there-
fore it has disappeared. For the
sense of é, negativing not merely the
fact, but the possibility, see the note
on Gal. iii. 238.

"EdAnvk.t.A.] Comparing the enume-
ration here with the parallel passage
Gal. iii. 28, we mark this difference.
In Galatians the abolition of all dis-
tinctions is stated in the broadest
way by the selection of three typical
instances; religious prerogative (Iov-
Satos,"EXAnv), social caste (SodAos, eAev-
Gepos), natural sex (d@poev, Ondv). Here
on the other hand the examples are
chosen with special reference to the
immediate circumstances of the Co-
lossian Church, (1) The Judaism of
the Colossian heretics is met by’EAAny
kat "lovdaios, and as it manifested it-
self especially in enforcing circumci-
sion, this is further emphasized by
mepiToun Kal axpoBvoria (see above,
p. 73). (2) Their Gnosticism again is
met by BapBapos, Sxvdns. They laid
special stress on intelligence, penetra-
tion, gnosis. The Apostle offers the
full privileges of the Gospel to barba-
rians and even barbarians of the low-

III. 11]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

217

BapBapos, ZKvOns, SovrAos, EAevOEpos, d\Aa Ta TavTA

est type (see p. 99 8q.). In Rom. i. 14
the division "EAAnciv re kat BapBapos
is almost synonymous with codois
Te Kai dvonros. (3) Special cir-
cumstances, connected with an emi-
nent member of the Church of Colos-
se, had directed his attention at this
moment to the relation of masters and
slaves. Hence he cannot leave the
subject without adding doddos, édev-
Gepos, though this has no special bear-
ing on the Colossian heresy. See
above, p. 33, and the note on iii. 22,
together with the introduction to the
Epistle to Philemon.

mepitou?) «.7.A.| Enforcing and ex-
tending the lesson of the previous
clause. This abolition of distinctions
applies to religious privilege, not only
as inherited by birth (EAAny kat “Iov-
datos), but also as assumed by adop-
tion (zepitop Kai dxpoBvoria). If it is
no advantage to be born a Jew, it is
none to become as a Jew; comp. 1 Cor.
vii. 19, Gal. v. 6, vi. 15.

BdpBapos] To the Jew the whole
world was divided into “Iovdaior and
"EdAnves, the privileged and unprivi-
leged portions of mankind, religious
prerogative being taken as the line of
demarcation (see notes Gal. ii. 3).
To the Greek and Roman it was
similarly divided into “EAAnves and
BapBapo, again the privileged and
unprivileged portion of the human
race, Civilisation and culture being
now the criterion of distinction.
Thus from the one point of view the
"EdAnv is contrasted disadvantage-
ously with the “Iovdaios, while from
the other he is contrasted advantage-
ously with the BdpBapos. Both dis-
tinctions are equally antagonistic to
the Spirit of the Gospel. The Apostle
declares both alike null and void in
Christ. The twofold character of the
Colossian heresy enables him to strike
at these two opposite forms of error
with one blow.

. The word BdpBapos properly deno-

ted one who spoke an inarticulate,
stammering, unintelligible language ;
see Max Miller Lectures on the Sci-
ence of Language ist ser. p. 81 sq.,
114 sq., Farrar Families of Speech
p. 21: comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Hence
it was adopted by Greek exclusiveness
and pride to stigmatize the rest of
mankind, a feeling embodied in the
proverb was px) “EAAnv BapBapos (Ser-
vius on Verg. Aen. ii. 504); comp.
Plato Polit. 262 BH Td pév ‘EAAnuiKdy
@s év dro mdavrav ahatpobyres yxapis,
cvpract dé Tois adAos yeveow...Bap-
Bapov pia KAnoes mpoceimrovres avro
k.7.A., Dionys. Hal. Lhe. xi. 5 Scrdodv
dé rd €Ovos, “EXAnv 7} BapBapos k.r.d.
So Philo Vit. Moys. ii, 5 (11. p. 138)
speaks of ro fou TyRa Tod dvOpa-
Tov yévous, TO BapBapikoy, aS opposed
to 76 “EXAnuxov. It is not necessary
to suppose that they adopted it from
the Egyptians, who seem to have call-
ed non-Egyptian peoples berber (sce
Sir G. Wilkinson in Rawlinson’s He-
rod. ii. 158); for the onomatopeia will
explain its origin independently, Stra-
bo xiv. 2. 28 (p. 662) ofuar d€ rd Bap-
Bapov kar’ apxas éexrehovicba ovtws
Kat ovoparorotiay emt Tay Sucexhopas
kal ok\npos Kal Tpayéws Aadovvrarv, as
To Batrapifev «7.A. The Latins,
adopting the Greek culture, adopted
the Greek distinction also, e.g. Cic. de
Fin. ii. 15 ‘Non solum Graecia et Ita-
lia, sed etiam omnis barbaria’: and
accordingly Dionysius, Ant. Rom. i.69,
classes the Romans with the Greeks
as distinguished from the ‘ barbarians’
—this twofold division of the human
race being taken for granted as abso-
lute and final. So too in v. 8, having
mentioned the Romans, he goes on to
speak of of GAAor EAAnves. The older
Roman poets however, writing from a
Greek point of view, (more than half
in irony) speak of themselves as bar-
bari and of their country as barbaria;
e.g. Plaut. Mil. Glor. ii. 2. 58 ‘ poetae
barbaro’ (of Naevius), Asin. Prol. 11.

218

\ 9 ~ Xx ,
Kal €V Tac XA plorTos.

‘Maccus vortit barbare, Poen. iii. 2.
21 ‘in barbaria boves,’

In this classification the Jews ne-
cessarily ranked as ‘barbarians’; Orig.
c. Cels. i. 2. At times Philo seems
tacitly to accept this designation (Vit.
Moys. 1. c.); but elsewhere he resents
it, Leg. ad Gai. 31 (IL p. 578) vad dpo-
ynpaTos, os pev évioe TOY SiaBadddvTav
elwovev av, BapBapixov, ws & exer Td
ddnbés, €devdepiov Kal evyevots. On
the other hand the Christian A polo-
gists with a true instinct glory in the
‘barbarous’ origin of their religion :
Justin Apol. i. 5 (p. 56 A) dAXa kai ev
BapBapots vr’ avrod Tov Adyou poppwGév-
Tos Kat avOparov yevopevov, ib. § 46 (p.
83 D) év BapBapas dé "ABpadp «.7.X.,
Tatian. ad Graec. 29 ypadats tioty
evruxety BapBapixais, ib. 31 rov dé
(Movonv) maons BapBdpov aodias ap-
xnyov, ib. 35 tis Ka@ myas BapBapov
@uocodias. By glorying in the name
they gave a practical comment on the
Apostle’s declaration that the distine-
tion of Greek and barbarian was
abolished in Christ. In a similar spirit
Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 16 (p. 361) en-
deavours to prove that ov pdvov dido-
copias adda Kal maons oxedov TéxvNS
evpetal BapBapor.

‘Not till that word barbarian,
writes Prof. Max Miller (1. c. p. 118),
‘was struck out of the dictionary of
mankind and replaced by brother, not
till the right of all nations of the world
to be classed as members of one genus
or kind was recognised, can we look
even for the first beginnings of our
science. This change was effected by
Christianity... Humanity is a word
which you look for in vain in Plato or

Aristotle; the idea of mankind as one .

family, as the children of one God, is
an idea of Christian growth: and the
science of mankind, and of the lan-
guages of mankind, is a science which,
without Christianity, would never have
sprung into life. When people had
been taught to look upon all men as

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(LBL 12

p) , = e ’
™éyouoagbe ovv, WS EKAEKTOL

brethren, then and then only, did the
variety of human speech present itself
as a problem that called for a solution
in the eyes of thoughtful observers:
and I therefore date the real begin-
ning of the science of language from
the first day of Pentecost... The com-
mon origin of mankind, the differences
of race and language, the susceptibi-
lity of all nations of the highest men-
tal culture, these become, in the new
world in which we live, problems of
scientific, because of more than scien-
tific interest.’ St Paul was the great
exponent of the fundamental principle
in the Christian Church which was
symbolized on the day of Pentecost,
when he declared, as here, that in
Christ there is neither “E\Anv nor

* BapBapos, or as in Rom. i. 14 that he

himself was a debtor equally "EdAnciv
Te Kat BapBapocs.

The only other passage in the New
Testament (besides those quoted) in
which BapBapos occurs is Acts xxviii.
2, 4, where it is used of the people of
Melita. If this Melita be Malta, they
would be of Pheenician descent.

Sxvéns| The lowest type of barba-
rian. There is the same collocation
of words in Dionys. Halic. Rhet. xi.
5, 6 marnp, BapBapos, SxvOns, véos,
Aesch. c. Cles. 172 3xvOns, BapBapos,
EAAnvifav tH avn (of Demosthenes).
The savageness of the Scythians was:
proverbial. The earlier Greek writers
indeed, to whom omne ignotum was
pro magnifico, had frequently spoken
of them otherwise (see Strabo vii. 3.
7 8q.,p. 300 sq.). Aeschylus for instance
called them evvouor Sxvda, Fragm.
189 (comp. Hum. 703). Like the
other Llyperboreans, they were a
simple, righteous people, living be-
yond the vices and the miseries
of civilisation. But the common
estimate was far different, and pro-
bably far more true: eg. 3 Macc.
Vii. 5 vopou Skv9av aypiwrépay...@p0-
tnta (comp. 2 Mace. iv. 47), Joseph.

dat) 12)

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

219

io ~ a A ° / 7 ? a
Tov Geod, aytor [Kat | jryamnpevolr, omAaYXVa OiKTIpLOd,

c. Ap. ii. 37 S«dOat...Bpaxd trav Onpiov
Svadéportes, Philo Leg. ad Gai. 2
(Il. p. 547) Sapparay yévn kal SxvOar,
arep ovx HTrov €Enypiora: Tay Teppan-
xov, Tertull. adv. Marc. i, 1 ‘Scytha
tetrior, Orig. c. Cels. i. 1 SxvOdv, rai
el Tt SkvOay doeBéorepov. In Vit. Moys.
ij. 4 (I. p. 137) Philo seems to place
the Egyptians and the Scythians at the
two extremes in the scale of barbarian
nations. ‘he passages given in Wet-
stein from classical writers are hardly
less strong in the same direction.
Anacharsis the Scythian is said to have
retorted €uol d¢ mayres "EAAnves oxvGi-
¢cvow, Clem. Strom. i. 16 (p. 364).
The Jews had a special reason for
their unfavourable estimate of the
Scythians. In the reign of Josiah
hordes of these northern barbarians
had deluged Palestine and a great
part of Western Asia (Herod. i. 103
—106). The incident indeed is passed
over in silence in the historical books ;
but the terror inspired by these in-
vaders has found expression in the
prophets (Kzek. xxviii, xxxix, Jer. i.
13 8q., Vi. 1-8q.), and they left behind
them a memorial in the Greek name
of Beth-shean, Sxv@dv woAts (Judith iii.
10, 2 Mace. xii. 29: comp. Judges i.
27 LXX) Or SxvdomoAus, Which seems to
have been derived from a settlement
on this occasion (Plin. WV. HZ. v. 16;
see Hwald Gesch. 11. p. 689 sq., Grove
s.v. Scythopolis in Smith’s Bibl. Dict.),
Hence Justin, Dial. § 28 (p. 246 ),
describing the largeness of the new
dispensation, says cay SxvOns 7 ris 7
Tlepons, €xet 8€ tHv Tod Ocod yvaow
kat tod Xpiorod avrod Kal dvAdoces
ta aida dikaa...pidos €or TH OcG,
where he singles out two different but
equally low types of barbarians, the
Scythians being notorious for their
ferocity, the Persians for their licen-
tiousness (Clem. Alex, Paed. i. 7,
p. 131, Strom. iii. 2, p. 515, and the
Apologists generally). So too the
Pseudo-Lucian, Philopatris 17, sati-

rising Christianity, KP. rdde eize, ef kai
Ta TOY Skvddv ev rH ovpavG éyxapar-
tovot. TP. wavra, ef rUxou ye xpnoTos
kai ev €Oveot. From a misconception
of this passage in the Colossians,
heresiologers distinguished four main
forms of heresy in the pre-Christian
world, BapBapiopos, oxvOiopos, EdAn-
moos, iovdaicpos ; 80 Epiphan. Epist.
ad Acac, 2 capas yap mepi rovTrav Tay

, ed €T.2 2 >
‘TETOAP@YV alpevTeay Oo amrooroAos €MLTE-

pov én, Ev yap Xpiore “Incod ov Bap-
Bapos, o¥ SKvOns, ovx “ENAnY, ovK "Iov-
Saios, dAAa Kav) Kricws: comp. Hauer.
i, 4, 7 8q., 1. pp. 5, 8 sq., Anaceph. i.
pp. 127, 129 sq.

Ta wavra KTA.| ‘Christ ts all
things and in all things’ Christ
has dispossessed and obliterated all
distinctions of religious prerogative
and intellectual preeminence and so-
cial caste; Christ has substituted
Himself for all these; Christ occupies
the whole sphere of human life and
permeates all its developments : comp.
Ephes. i. 23 rod ra mavra év maow TAn-
poupevov. For ta mavra, which is
stronger than of mayres, see Gal. iii.
22 ouvexdercev 1 ypady Ta wayta vm0
duapriay with the note. In this pas-
sage ¢vy maow is probably neuter, as
in 2 Cor, xi. 6, Phil. iv, 12, 1 Tim. iti.
11, 2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 5, E:phes. iv. 6, vi.
16.

In the parallel passage Gal. iii. 23
the corresponding clause is mayres
vpeis eis eore ev Xptor@ “Incov. The
inversion here accords with a chief
motive of the epistle, which is to as-
sert the absolute and universal supre-
macy of Christ; comp. i. 17 8q., ii.
10 sq., 19. The two parts of the anti-
thesis are combined in our Lord’s
saying, Joh. xiv. 20 vets év euol, kayo
€v piv.

12—15. ‘Therefore, as the elect of
God, as a people consecrated to His
service and specially endowed with
His love, array yourselves in hearts of
compassion, in kindliness and humi-

220

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

B88 so:

XenTTOTHTA, Tarewoppocuvrny, mpavtnTa, paxpobv-

lity, in a gentle and yielding spirit.
Bear with one another, forgive freely
among yourselves. As your Master
forgave you His servants, so ought ye
to forgive your fellow-servants. And
over all these robe yourselves in love;
for this is the garment which binds
together all the graces of perfection.
And let the one supreme umpire in
your hearts, the one referee amidst
all your difficulties, be the peace of
Christ, which is the destined goal of
your Christian calling, in which is
realised the unity belonging to mem-
bers of one body. Lastly of all; show
your gratitude by your thanksgiving,’

12. évdtaacbe ovv| ‘ Put on there-
Sore, as men to whom Christ has be-
come all in all. The incidental men-

tion of Christ as superseding all other *

relations gives occasion to this argu-
mentative ody: comp. iii. I, 5.

@s éx\eKTol TOU Geo | ‘as elect ones
of God.” Comp. Rom. viii. 3, Tit. i. 1.
In the Gospels kAnroi and éxXexroi are
distinguished as an outer and an in-
ner circle (Matt. xxii. 14 woAAol yap
elo KAnTol, odiyou S€ €xAeKTOL), KANTOL
being those summoned to the privi-
leges of the Gospel and ékdXexroi those
appointed to final salvation (Matt.
RAY. 22,24; 31, Mark xi11;'20,:02; 27,
Luke xviii. 7). But in St Paul no
such distinction can be traced. With
him the two terms seem to be coex-
tensive, as two aspects of the same pro-
cess, xAnroi having special reference to
the goal and ékxAexroi to the starting-
point. The same persons are ‘ called’
to Christ, and ‘chosen out’ from the
world. Thus in rt Thess. i. 4 eidSdres
THY exkdoyny Upav k.7.A. the word clearly
denotes election to Church-member-
ship. Thus also in 2 Tim. ii. 10, where
St Paul says that he endures all things
dua rovs ékAexrovs, adding iva kai avrot
catnpias TUXwc k.7.A., the uncertainty
implied in these last words clearly
shows that election to final salvation
is not meant. In the same sense he

speaks of an individual Christian as
‘elect, Rom. xvi. 13. And again in
I Cor. i. 26, 27 Pdemrere THY Kdjouv
UUOY...TA Opa Tov Kdapou €&edeEaro,
the words appear as synonymes. The
same is also the usage of St Peter.
Thus in an opening salutation he ad-
dresses whole Christian communities
as exdexroé (I Pet. i. I; comp. v. 13 7
auvekextn ev BaSvrodu, i.e. probably
exkAnoia), aS St Paul under similar
circumstances (Rom. i. 6, 7, I Cor.
i..2) designates them «Anroi; and in
another passage (2 Pet. i. 10) he ap-
peals to his readers to make their
KAjots and exdoyn sure. The use of
exAextos in 2 Joh. I, 13, is apparently
the same; and in Apoc. xvii. 14 of
per avrov KAnTol Kat éxAexrol Kal m-
oroi this is also the case, as we may
infer from the addition of maroi, which
points to those who have been true to
their ‘ calling and election.” Thus the
Gospels stand alone in this respect.
In fact éxAoyy denotes election by
God not only to final salvation, but to
any special privilege or work, whe-
ther it be (1) Church-membership, as
in the passages cited from the epistles;
or (2) The work of preaching, as when
St Paul (Acts ix. 15) is called credos
exdoyns, the object of the ‘election’
being defined in the words following,
tov Bacragat TO Gvowd pov évemuov
[ray] eOvav te Kat Bactdéwv k.7.A.;3 OF
(3) The Messiahship, 1 Pet. ii. 4, 6; or
(4) The fatherhood of the chosen
people, as in the case of Isaac and Ja-
cob, Rom. ix. 11; or (5) The faithful
remnant under the theocracy, Rom.
xi. 5, 7,28. This last application pre-
sents the closest analogy to the idea
of final salvation: but even here St
Paul treats kAjows and éxAoyn as Co-
extensive, Rom. xi. 28, 29 cara d€ thv
exAoyny dyamnrot ia tovs marépas*
dpuerapednta yap Ta xapiopara Kal 7
kKAnots TOU Ceov.

ayo x.t.A.]| These are not to be
taken as vocatives, but as predicates

III. 13]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 221

> / \ , ~
piavy 3 dvexouevot d\AnAWY, Kal yYaptCouEvoL EavTois,

further defining the meaning of éxdex-
roi. All the three terms éxAexroi,
dy.ol, nyarnuevot, are transferred
from the Old Covenant to the New,
from the Israel after the flesh to the
Israel after the Spirit. For the two
former comp. I Pet. ii. 9 yévos éxXexrov
...€Ovos ayov; and for the sense of
dy.ot, ‘ the consecrated people of God,’
see the note on Phil. i. 1. For the
third word, nyarnpévo, see Is. v. I
“Acw 61) TO Hyarnpévo x.t.r., Hos.
ii. 25 ryv ovK nyannpeyvny nyamnperny
(as quoted in Rom. ix. 25). In the
New Testament it seems to be used
always of the objects of God’s love ;
e.g. I Thess. i. 4 eiddres, ddeAdol nya-
mnpevot UO Oeov, THY exAOyTY VEOY,
2 Thess. ii. 13 adeAGol Hyamnpévor dro
Kupiov (comp. Jude 1); and so proba-
bly Rev. xx. 9 tHv modu thy nyamrnpe-
vnv. For the connexion of God’s elec-
tion and God’s love see Rom. xi. 28
(quoted above), 1 Thess. l.c. The kai
is omitted in one or two excellent
copies (though it has the great pre-
ponderance of authorities in its fa-
vour), and it is impossible not to feel
how much the sentence gains in force
by the omission, ékAexrol Gcod, dy:on,
nyamnpéevor; comp. I Pet. ii. 6.

om\ayxva oiktippov| ‘a heart of
pity” For the meaning of omAdyxva
see the note on Phil. j. 8, and for the
whole expression comp. omAdyyva €dé-
ovs Luke i. 78, Test. vit Patr. Zab. 7, 8.

xXpnorornra x.7.A.] The two words
xpnororns and ramewodpocvyn, ‘ kind-
liness’ and ‘humility,’ describe the
Christian temper of mind generally,
and this in two aspects, as it affects
either (1) our relation to others (ypyc-
rorns), or (2) our estimate of self (ra-
mewoppoovn). For xpnororns see the
note on Gal. v. 22: for rarewoppocvvn,
the note on Phil. ii. 3.

mpaitnta «t.A.] These next two
‘words, mpaitns and paxpovpia, de-
note the exercise of the Christian
temper in its outward bearing to-

wards others. They are best distin-
guished by their opposites. mpairns
is opposed to ‘rudeness, harshness,’
dyp.otns (Plato Symp. 197 D), xademo-
ns (Arist. H. A. ix. 1); paxpodvpia to
‘resentment, revenge, wrath,’ dpy7
(Prov. xvi. 32), o€vxoAia (Herm. Mand.
vy. I, 2) For the meaning of paxpo-
Oupia see above, oni. 11; for the form
of mpairns (xpadrns), on Gal. v. 23.
The words are discussed in Trench
N.T. Syn. § xiii. p. 140 8q., § xliii.
p- 145 sq., § lili. p. 184 sq. They ap-
pear in connexion Ephes. iv. 2, Ign.
Polyc. 6 paxpobvynoare otv per adA7-
ov €v mpavtnte.

13. ddAjdov, éavrois] The pro-
noun is varied, as in Ephes. iv. 32
yiveoe cis dAXHAOVS xXpNoTol...xapi-
Couevos €EavTots k.7.A., I Pet. iv.8—i1o
Thy els EavTOvS aydmny extern ExovTeEs
...pirogevoe eis dAAHAovs...€is E€av-
Tovs avro [Td xdptcpa] Stakovodyres.
The reciprocal €avraéy differs from the
reciprocal d\AjA@v in emphasizing the
idea of corporate unity; hence it is
more appropriate here (comp. Ephes.
iv. 2, 32) with yapiCopevor than with
dvexopevor: comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 16
avtl ev TOU ouvepyely EavTois Ta oup-
épovra, emnpeafovow adAAnAots, Kar
POovotow Eavrois paddAov f Trois aA-
Lots GvOpedrois...kai mpoaipodvrat par-
Rov ovrw Kepdaivery dm aGdAAnr@r Fj
auvapehovvres avtovs, where the pro-
priety of the two words in their re-
spective places will be evident: and
ib. ii, 7. 12 dvtl Upopopévav éautas
75€ws GAANAas Ewpav, where the vari-
ation is more subtle but not less ap-
propriate. For instances of this use of
eavtav see Bleek Hebriierbrief iii. 13
(p. 453 sq.) Kithner Griech. Gramm.
§ 455 (IL. p. 497 8q.).

xaptCopevor| i.e. ‘ forgiving’; see the
note on ii. 13. An a fortiori argu-
ment lurks under the use of éavrois
(rather than a\Andos): if Christ for-
gave them, much more should they
forgive themselves.

Ppa

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(III. 14

€ay TIs moos Twa € O guy kabws Kat o Kuvouos
, ce VA xi i oer lad \ A
EXaplTaTO ULV, OUTWS Kal Umets* “emt TATW O€ TOUTOIS

popdny] ‘a complaint’ As pép-
deobar is ‘ to find fault with,’ referring
most commonly to errors of omission,
80 poudy here is regarded as a debt,
which needs to be remitted. The
rendering of the A. V. ‘a quarrel’
(=querela) is only wrong as being an
archaism. The phrase pouydjy éyeuw
occurs several times in classical Greek,
but generally in poetry: e.g. Eur.
Orest. 1069, Arist. Pax 664.

xaOos xat x.7.A.| This must not be
connected with the preceding words,
but treated as an independent sen-
tence, the xaéods cai being answered
by the ovrws cai. For the presence of
kai in both clauses of the comparison
see the note on i. 6. The phenomenon
is common in the best classical writers,
e.g. Xen. Mem.i. 6.3 domep cat rav
Grav epyov of SiddoKxadot...ovT@ Kal
ov x7.A.; see the references in Hein-
dorf on Plato Phaedo 64 0, Sophist.
217 B, and Kihner Girtech. Gramm.
§ 524 (IL p. 799).

6 Kvpios] This reading, which is
better supported than 6 Xpuoros, is
also more expressive. It recalls more
directly the lesson of the parable
which enforces the duty of fellow-
servant to fellow-servant; Matt. xviii.
27 omdayxyuobeis 5€ 0 KUpLOS Tov
SovAov éxeivov améAvoev avTov kal TO
davecov ddjkev avT@ k.r.d.: comp. below
iv. I eidores Ott Kal Ypeis ExeTEe KUPLOV
evovpave. The reading Xpioros perhaps
comes from the parallel passage Ephes.
iv. 32 yaptCopevoe eavtois, Kabads Kal oO
Gcds €v Xptore €xapicaro jyiv (or vpiv).

ovT@s Kal vpeis| sc. yapiCecbe éav-
TOUS.

14. ent macw] ‘overand above all
these, comp. Luke iii. 20 mpooéOnkev
Kal TouTo emt macw. In Luke xvi. 26,
Ephes. vi. 16, the correct reading is
probably év maow. Love is the outer
garment which holds the others in
their places.

Tv ayanny] sc. evddoacbe, from ver.
Ea:
6|‘ which thing, i.e. ‘love’; comp.
Ephes. v. 5 mAcovextns, 6 €or €idwdo-
Aadrpns, Ign. Rom. 7 dprov Ceod béhra,
6 €otw capE Xprorov, Dlagn. 10 pera-
BareoGe eis véav Cupny 6 eri Incovs
Xpioros, Trall. 8 dvaxtnoacbe éavtovs
€v miotes 6 eat cap& Tod Kupiov.
Though there are various readings in
the passages of the Ignatian Epistles,
the 6 seems to be generally right.
These instances will show that 6 may
be referred to rHyv dyamnv alone. O-
therwise we miglit suppose the ante-
cedent to be ro évdvcacbau rnv ayarny,
but this hardly suits the sense. The
‘common reading jris is obviously a
scribe’s correction.

ovvoecpos k.7.A.| ‘the bond of per-
fection, i.e. the power, which unites
and holds together all those graces
and virtues, which together make up
perfection. Ilavra éxeiva, says Chry-
sostom, adry ovodiyyer’ dmep av eimns
dyaédv, ravtns dmovons ovdéy e€otiy
a\Aad Stappet: comp. Clem. Rom. 49
roy Seapov ths ayamns Tod Geou Tis
Svvarat ¢Enynoacda; Thus the Pytha-
goreans (Simplic. in Epictet. p. 208 a)
TEplaTas TAY GAA apeTay THY Pidrlay
€riav kal gUvyOETpOY AUTHY TaTeY Ta
dpetav édeyov. So too Themist. Oras.
i. (p. 5 €) Baciduky (dpery) mapa tas
dAdas eis Hy Evydodvra Kai ai ourai,
Gomep eis piay Kopupny avnupéva.
The word will take a genitive either
of the object bound or of the binding
force: eg. Plato Polit. 310 A rotvrov
Oevdrepoy eivar tov Evvderpov apetis
pepav hicews dvopolwy kal emt Tavavria.
cepopevov, where the dpern Evvdet and
the pépn hvoews Evvdeirar. We have
an instance of the one genitive (the
objective) here, of the other (the sub-
jective) in Ephes. iv. 3 évr@ cuvdeop@
ris elpnyns (see the note.there).

Another explanation makes ovvdec-

III. 15]

\ ’ , a / ~ /
THY ayaTHV, O EOTLY cUVoET MOS THS TENELOTHTOS.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

223

4
Kal

e > / A an Os b] ~ / e a
i elonvn TOU Xpixtod BoaBeveTw ev Tals Kapdiats Vuwr,

> ra \ 9 / . Suey t
els nv Kal éxAnOnTe ev Evi Twpatt.

pos=avvOears here, ‘the bundle, the
totality, as e.g. Herodian. iv. 12 mdy-
Ta TOY cuvder po TaY emigToAGY (comp.
Ign. Trall. 3 cvvderpov drocrodey) ;
but this unusual metaphor is highly
improbable and inappropriate here,
not to mention that we should expect
the definite article 6 cvvdecpos in this
case. With either interpretation,
the function assigned to dydamn here
is the same as when it is declared to
be mAjpepa vopou, Rom. xiii. 10 (comp.
Gal. vy. 14). See also the all-embracing
office which is assigned to it in 1 Cor.
xiii,

15. n €lpyyn Tov Xpicrov | ‘ Christ’s
peace, which He left as a legacy to His
disciples: Joh. xiv. 27 elpyunv ddinus
viv, eipnuny rnyv éepny Sidope vpiv;
comp. Ephes. ii. 14 avros yap éorw 7
elpnyn jpov with the context. The
common reading 7) eipjvn rod cov has
a parallel in Phil. iy, 7.

BpaBevéerw|] ‘be umpire,” for the
idea of a contest is only less promi-
nent here, than in BpaBetoy 1 Cor. ix.
24, Phil. iii. 14 (see the note there).
Sradiov evboy emoincey Ev Tois Moyo pots,
writes Chrysostom, cal dyéva kai 4OAn-
ow kat BpaBevrny. Wherever there
is a conflict of motives or impulses or
reasons, the peace of Christ must step
in and decide which is to prevail: M7
Oupos BpaBeverw, says Chrysostom
again, py idoverkia, py avOparivn
elpnyn’ 1 yap avOpwrimm eipyyn éx Tod
dpvverOar yivera, €k Tod pndev macyew
devvov.

For this metaphor of some one
paramount consideration acting as
umpire, where there is a conflict of
internal motives, see Polyb. ii. 35. 3
dmay TO ylyvouevov vo Tav Tadarev
Oup@ paddrov 7 Aoytapa BpaPeve-
76a, Philo de Migr. Abr. 12 (1 p.
446) mopeverat 6 appv di audorépwy
Oupod re kal éemiOupias det...rdv Tvioyoy

EVYADLETOL

kai BpaBeuvtnv Aoyor dmroBarov
(comp. de Hbriet. 19, 1. p. 368), Jos.
B. J. vi. 2. 6 €BpaBeve ras rédpas 6.
do8os. Somewhat similarly Heh
(Polyb. xxvii. 14. 4) or @vovs (Athen.
XV. p. 670 A) are made BpaBevew. In
other passages, where 6 Geos or To
Geiov is said BpaBevew, this implies
that, while man proposes, God dis-
poses. In Philo ddnOeva BpaBevovoa
(Qui rer. div. her. 19, 1. p. 486) is a
rough synonyme for dA7jOeva Sixatovca
(de Abrah. 14, IL. p. 10, ete.): and
in Josephus (Ant. vi. 3. 1) duxaCey and
BpaBevew are used together of the
same action. In all such cases it.ap-
pears that the idea of a decision and
an award is prominent in the word,
and that it must not be taken to de-
note simply rule or power.

els nv K.r.A.] Comp. I Cor. vii. 15
ev dé eipnvy KéxAnkev Huds 6 Oeds.

ev évi cdpare| ‘As ye were called as
members of one body, so let there
be one spirit animating that body’:
Ephes. iv. 4 év ca@pa kal év mvedpa.
This passage strikes the keynote of
the companion Epistle to the Ephe-
sians (see esp. ii. 16 sq., iv. 3 sq.).

evyapioro.| ‘ And to crown all for-
get yourselves in thanksgiving: towards
God’: see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7. The
adjective evyapioros, though not oc-
curring elsewhere in the Greek Bible,
is not uncommon in classical writers,
and like the English ‘ grateful,’ has
two meanings ; either (1) ‘pleasurable’
(e.g. Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 1) ; or (2) ‘ thank-
ful’ (e.g. Boeckh C. Z. no. 1625), as
here.

16,17. ‘ Let the inspiring word of
Christ dwell in your hearts, enriching
you with its boundless wealth and en-
dowing you with all wisdom. Teach
and admonish one another with psalms,
with hymns of praise, with spiritual
songs of all kinds. Only let them be

\
Kal

224 ‘EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[III. 16

y ~~ ~ , ~
yiverbe. *°O Novos Tob Xpioov évorxeiTw év vulv Tov-
tA / 4 ral
wiws év Taon copia: OvoacKovTes Kat vouGeTourTes

pervaded with grace from heaven.
Sing to God in your hearts and not
with your lips only. And generally ;
whatever ye do, whether in word or
in deed, let everything be done in the
name of Jesus Christ. And (again I
repeat it) pour out your thanksgiving
to God the Father through Him.’

16. ‘O Adyos Tov Xpucrov] ‘the word
of Christ, rod Xpicrod being the sub-
jective genitive, so that Christ is the
speaker. Though 6 Aoyos tov Ccod
and 6 Aoyos tov Kupiov occur fre-
quently, 6 Aoyos rod Xpicrod is found
here only. There seems to be no di-
rect reference in this expression to
any definite body of truths either

written or oral, but 6 Adyos rod Xpuo- .

rov denotes the presence of Christ in
the heart, as an inward monitor:
comp. I Joh. ii 14 6 Adyos rod Ocod
ev vu pévet, With 2b. 1. 10 6 Aoyos a¥-
- Tov ovK €oTW ev nuiv, and so perhaps
Acts xviii. 5 cuvelyero TO Ady@ (the
correct reading).

ev vpiv] ‘in your hearts, not ‘among
you’ ; comp. Rom. viii. 9, 11 rd évorxovy
avTou mvedpa ev vpiv, 2 Tim. i. 5, 14,
and Lev. xxvi. 12, as quoted in 2 Cor.
vi. 16, evoixnow ev avrois.

mAovciws|] See above, p. 43 sq., and
the note on i. 27.

ev maon copia} ‘in every kind of
wisdom. It seems best to take these
words with the preceding clause,
though Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 4 (p. 194)
attaches them to what follows. For
this position of év aon copia, at the
end of the sentence to which it refers,
comp. i. 9, Ephes. i. 8. The connexion
here adopted is also favoured by the
parallel passage Ephes. v. 18, 19 (see
the note below). Another passage i.
28 vovOerotvtes mavta avOpwrov kat
duacxovres wavta GvOpwroyv év macy
cogia has a double bearing: while the
connexion favours our taking év racy
copia here with the following words,

the order suggests their being at-
tached to the preceding clause.

didaoxovres x.7.A.] The participles
are here used for imperatives, as fre-
quently in hortatory passages, e.g.
Rom. xii. 9 sq., 16 sq., Ephes. iv. 2, 3,
Hebr.cxiil..5,. 1 Pet. 11.12 [7], iil. 1, 7,9;
15,16. Itis not, as some insist, that
the participle itself has any imperati-
val force; nor,as maintained by others,
that the construction should be ex-
plained by the hypothesis of a prece-
ding parenthesis or of a verb sub-
stantive understood or by any other
expedient to obtain a regular gram-
matical structure (see Winer, § xlv.
p. 441 sq., § lxii. p. 707, § Ixiii. p. 716,
§ lxiv. p. 732). But the absolute par-
ticiple, being (so far as regards mood)
neutral in itself, takes its colour from
the general complexion of the sen-
tence. Thus it is sometimes indica-
tive (e.g. 2 Cor. vii. 5, and frequently),
sometimes imperative (as in the pas-
sages quoted), sometimes optative (as
above, ii. 2, 2 Cor. ix. 11, comp. Ephes.
iii. 17). On the distinction of dda-
okey ald vovOereivy see the note on i.
28 ; they describe respectively the posi-
tive and the negative side of instruc-
tion. On the reciprocal €avrovs see
the note on iii. 13.

Wadpois x.r.d.] To be connected with
the preceding sentence, as suggested
by Ephes. yv. 18 sq. d\Aa mAnpodcde év
mvevpatt, Aahovyres éavrois [év] yad-
Bois kal Vuvors Kal BOais [mvevparixais |,
GSovres kal Waddovtes 7H Kapdia vuav
T® Kupio. The datives describe the
instruments of the didayy and vov-
Oecia.

The three words Wadpos, Suvos, 357,
are distinguished, so far as they are
distinguishable, in Trench W.7. Syn.
§ lxxviii. p. 279 sq. They are cor-
rectly defined by Gregory Nyssen in
Psalm. ¢. iii (1. p. 295) Warpos pév
eat 4 dia Tod dpyavov Tod povarkoy

III. 16]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. oo Bee

éavtous Wadpois tuvos gdais mvevpatuais év TH
M

pedodia, @d7 be 9 dia oroparos yevo-
pevn Tob péAous pera pnparav emipa-
nos... .Upvos dé 4 emt Tots vmapxovow
nyy dyabois avariWepern TH OG evpn-
pia; see also Hippol. p. 191 sq. (ed.
de Lagarde). In other words, while
the leading idea of yadpos is a musi-
cal accompaniment and that of duvos
praisé to God, @57 is the general word
for a song, whether accompanied or
unaccompanied, whether of praise or
on any other subject. Thus it was

quite possible for the same song to

be at once Wadpos, dyvos, and @d7.
In the text the reference in Wadpois,
we may suppose, is specially, though
not exclusively (1 Cor. xiv. 26), to
the Psalms of David, which would
early form part of the religious wor-
ship of the Christian brotherhood.
On the other hand dpuvors would more
appropriately designate those hymns
of praise which were composed by the
Christians themselves on distinctly
Christian themes, being either set
forms of words or spontaneous effu-
sions of the moment. The third word
@dais gathers -up the other two, and
extends the precept to all forms of
song, with the limitation however that
they must be mvevparixai. St Chry-
sostom treats vuyo. here as an advance
upon Wadyoi, which in one aspect they
are; of Wadpoi, he says, mavra ¢yovow,
of d€ vuvor madwy ovdev avOpomwwor"
dray év Tots Wadpois pan, Tore Kal Up-
vous €loerat, dre Oeworepov mpaypya-
Psalmody and hymnody were highly
developed in the religious services of
the Jews at this time: see Philo in
Flace. 14 (u. Pp. 535) mayvuxou dé dia-
Tedéoavres ev Upvois Kat dais, de Vit.
Cont. § 3 (IL. p. 476) Towovow dopara
Kal Upvous eis Ocov dua jTavrolwv BéeTpov
kal ped@v, & puOpois weuvorepors avay-
kaiws yapdrrovet, § 10 (p. 484) 6 dva-
oTas Upvov Goer Temompéevoy eis Tov
Gcov, 7) Kavov adros memounkads 7) dp-
xaidv Tia Tay mada TonTay’ pérpa
yap kal péAn karaXeXolmact moda erav

COL.

TPiLeTPOY, TpoTodioy, Uuvwov, mapa-
arovdeiwv, mapaBopiov, cracipev, xo-
pixay, oTpopais modvorpodois ev Stape-
peTpnpevey K.7.A., § II (p. 485) Govoe
Tetroinpevous €is TOY Qeov Upvous ToA-
Aois pérpots kal pédeot x7T.A., With
the whole context. They would thus
find their way into the Christian
Church from the very beginning.
For instances of singing hymns or
psalms in the Apostolic age see Acts
iv..24, xvi. 25, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26.
Hence even in St Paul’s epistles, more
especially his later epistles, fragments
of such hymns appear to be quoted; e.g.
Ephes. v. 14 (see the note there). For
the use of hymnody in the early Church
of the succeeding generations see Plin.
Epist. x. 97 ‘Ante lucem convenire,
carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere
secum invicem,’ Anon. | Hippolytus] in
Ruseb. H. #. v. 28 ahpot dé deot Kat
@dat adeApav ar dp xis vo m-
oTOV ypapeioas Tov Aoyov Tov Geod Tov
Xpucrév vpvodot Ocodoyovvres. The
reference in the text is not solely or
chiefly to public worship as such.
Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 4 (p. 194) treats
it as applying to social gatherings;
and again Tertullian says of the agape,
Apol. 39 ‘Ut quisque de scripturis
sanctis vel de proprio ingenio potest,
provocatur in medium Deo canere,’
and of the society of husband and
wife, dd Uzor. ii, 8 ‘Sonant inter
duos psalmi et hymni, et mutuo pro-
vocant quis melius Domino suo cantet.’
On the ‘psalmody etc. of the early
Christians see Bingham Antig. xiv.
c. 1, and especially Probst Lehre und
Gebet p. 2 56 sq.

év TH xapere] in God’s grace’;
comp. 2 Cor. i. 12 ovK €v codia cap-
Kuky «GAN év xapire Ocov. These
words are perhaps best connected with
the preceding clause, as by Chryso-
stom. Thus the parallelism with éy
macn copia is preserved. The cor-
rect reading is év Th xapert, not ev
xapirt, For 4 ydpts, ‘Divine grace’

15

aie

226

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

ply 18

, 25) 9 ~ OL e o a a) a 17 \
XAPLTL, a OPTES: EV Tals KaO LaLS UMWY TW Ew Ka

Cr e/ suN lo , \ > f f 9
mav 0 TL €ay monte év Noyw 7 EV ENYw, TavTa év
Sek V4 2 a b) a ~ a \
—Gvouatt Kupiou “Incov, evyapistovvtes TW Cew maTpi

ov auvTou.

18 Aj nn ¢ , a ~ p) By 4 e Pics
l YUVQALKES, UTFOTAGOCEOVE TOLLS AV Paoly, WS adVi-

see Phil. i. 7 cuvkowwvots pov tis
xaptros with the note. ‘The definite
article seems to exclude all lower
senses of yapis here, such as ‘accept-
ableness,’ ‘sweetness’ (see iv. 6). The
interpretation ‘with gratitude, if
otherwise tenable (comp. 1 Cor. x. 30),
seems inappropriate here, because the
idea of thanksgiving is introduced in
the following verse.

@dovres x.t.A.] This external mani-
festation must be accompanied by the
inward emotion. There must be the
thanksgiving of the heart, as well as.
of the lips ; comp. Ephes. v. 19 ddovres
kal Waddovtes 7H kapdia (probably the
correct reading), where 17 xapdia
‘with the heart’ brings out the sense
more distinctly.

17. mav 6 teK.7.r.] This is proba-
bly a nominative absolute, as Matt. x.
32 mas ovv dotis opodoyrcet... dpo-
hoynow Kayo é€v avr (comp. Luke
xii. 8), Luke xii. 10 was Os épet Adyov
.. apeOnoerat avT@, John xvii. 2 wav
0 dédaxas adres, ddan adrois KTA.;
comp. Matt. vil. 24 (v. 1.).

mavra] 8¢. Toveire, as the following
evyapitorovrres suggests; comp. ver.
23

ev dvouart «.7.A.] This is the great
practical lesson which flows from the
theological teaching of the epistle,
Hence the reiteration of Kupio, év
Kupig, etc., Vv. 18, 20, 22, 23, 24. See
above p. 104.

evxapiorovvres| On this refrain see
the notes on i. 12, ii. 7.

T® Oc@ watpi| This, which is quite
the best authenticated reading, gives
a very unusual, if not unique, colloca-
tion of words, the usual form being
either 6 Gcds Kal matnp OY Geds watnp.
The xai before warpi in the received

text is an obvious emendation. See
the note on i. 3, and the appendix on
various readings.

18—21. ‘Ye wives, be subject to
your husbands, for so it becomes you
in Christ. Ye husbands, love and
cherish your wives, and use no harsh-
ness towards them. Ye children, be
obedient to your parents in all things;
for this is commendable and lovely in
Christ. Ye parents, vex not your
children, lest they lose heart and grow
sullen.

18 sq. These precepts, providing
for the conduct of Christians in private
households, should be compared with
Ephes. v. 22—Vvi. 9, 1 Pet. ii. 18 —iii. 7,
Tit. 11. I sq.; see also Clem. Rom. 1,
Polyc. Phil. 4 sq.

Ai yuvaixes| ‘ Ye wives, the nomina-
tive with the definite article being
used for a vocative, as frequently in
the New Testament, e.g. Matt. xi. 26,
Mark y. 41, Luke viii. 54; see Winer
§ xxix. p. 227sq. The frequency of
this use is doubtless due to the fact
that it is a reproduction of the He-
brew idiom. In the instances quoted
from classical writers (see Bernhardy
Syntax p. 67) the address is not
so directly vocative, the nominative
being used rather to define or select
than to summon the person in ques-
tion.

tots avdpaow] The idios of the
received text may have been inserted
(as it is inserted also in Ephes. v. 24)
from Ephes. v. 22, Tit. ii. 5, 1 Pet. iii.
I, 5, in all which passages this same
injunction occurs. The scribes how-
ever show a general fondness for this
adjective; e.g. Mark xv. 20, Luke ii. 3,
Acts i. 19, Ephes. iv. 28, 1 Thess. ii.
Ca ae oe

HI. 19—22]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 227

»)- - A -~
xev €v Kupiw. Ot avdpes, @yamate Tas yuvaixas Kai

\ > /
bn mupaiverbe mpos avras.

\ , ,
*°Ta TEKVA, UTAKOUVETE

= A \ , a \ >7 ,
TOLS YOVEVGOLY KATA TAVTQA TOUTO yao EVaAPED TOV EOTLY

év Kupiw.
iva pn adQupwoow.

dvijxev| The imperfect, as Ephes. v.
4 @ ovk aynxev (the correct reading) ;
comp. Clem. Hom. Contest. 3 rovde
py peradodvar xapiy, os ov TMpoTKe?y,
Xen. de Re Equestr. xii. 14 & immapy@
mpootkev eidévat Te Kal mparrew; and
see D’Orville on Charito viii. 2 (p. 699
sq.). The common uses of the imper-
fect der, empereyv, etc., in classical wri-
ters do not present a very exact
parallel; for they imply that the thing
which ought to have been done has
been left undone. And so we might
interpret Acts xxii. 22 od yap xaOj-
Kev avrov (qv (the correct reading).
Here however there can hardly be
any such reference; and the best
illustration is the English past tense
‘ought’ (=‘ owed’), which is used in
the same way. The past tense per-
haps implies an essential a priort
obligation. The use of ypiv, ¢ypny,
occasionally approximates to this; e.g.
Eur. Andr. 423.

The idea of ‘propriety’ is the link
which connects the primary meaning
of such words as dyyjxew, mpoonkew,
xaOyxewv, ‘aiming at or pertaining to,’
with their ultimate meaning of moral
obligation. The word. dyjxew occurs
in the New Testament only here and
in the contemporary epistles, Ephes.
y. 4, Philem. 8.

ev Kupia| Probably to be connected
with os avjxev, rather than with dzo-
TacoecGe; comp. ver. 20 evdpecrov
eati ev Kupig.

19. py wikpaiverOe k.r.d.] ‘show no
bitterness, behave not harshly’; comp.
Lynceus in Athen. vi. p, 242 © mxpay-
Gein mpos Twa Tdv ov¢dvrwr, Joseph.
Ant. y. 7.1 Sewas mpos rods rod &-
kaiov mpoictapévous exmixpawopevos,

Plut. Mor. p. 457 A mpos yivaa da-

Q1 e / \ b] / \ / e ~~
Oi warépes, pn epeOiCere Ta TEKva Uuwv,

fel ~ | / /

"2Qi dovAOL, UTaKOVETE KATA TayTa

mixpaivoyvrat, So also mixpaiveobar émi
tia in the Luxx, Jerem. xliv (xxxvii),
15, 3 Esdr. iv. 31. This verb axpai-
veo$a and its compounds -occur fre-
quently in classical writers.

20. Kata mavra| As in ver.22. The
rule is stated absolutely, because the
exceptions are so few that. they may
be disregarded.

evdpeorov éeorw] ‘is well pleasing,
commendable” The received text
supplies this adjective with a dative
of reference r@ Kvpi@ (from Ephes.
v. 10), but év Kupio is unquestionably
the right reading. With the reading
thus corrected evapecrov, like dvijxey
ver. 18, must be taken absolutely,
as perhaps in Rom. xii. 2 ro O€Anpa
Tod Geov Td adyabdy kal edapeotoy Kal
téAevov: comp. Phil. iv. 8 dca cepva
...0oca mpoopry. The qualification
év Kupim implies ‘as judged by a
Christian standard” ‘as judged by
those who are members of Christ’s
body,’

21. épebicere] ‘provoke, irritate?
The other reading mapopyifere has
higher support, but is doubtless taken
from the parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 4.
‘Irritation’ is the first consequence of
being too exacting with children, and
irritation leads to moroseness (d6v-
pia) In 2 Cor. ix. 2 épeOicew is used
in a good sense and produces the
opposite result, not despondency but
energy.

abvpaow| ‘lose heart, become spi-
ritless, i.e. ‘go about their task
in a listless, moody, sullen frame of
mind.’ ‘Fractus animus, says Ben-
gel, ‘ pestis juventutis.’ In Xen. Cyr.
i. 6. 13 dOupia is opposed to mpobvpia,
and in Thuc. ii, 88 and elsewhere
dOvpety is opposed to dapeeiv.

15—2

2258

EPISTLE TO THH COLOSSIANS.

[III. 23

i a oa upiows, pn €v OPOarpodovAcia w
Tois KaT pka kuptots, pn p Ml eae.
dvOpwrapeckot, dAN év amAOTHTL Kapolas, PoBovpevor

TOV Kupuov.

36 éav mote, ex Wuxns épyalerOe wis

22. év dpGarpodovretacs.

22—iv. 1. ‘Ye slaves, be obedient
in all things to the masters set over
you in the flesh, not rendering them
service only when their eyes are upon
you, as aiming merely to please men,
but serving in all sincerity of heart, as
living in the sight of your Heavenly
Master and standing in awe of Him.
- And in everything that ye do, work
faithfully and with all your soul, as
labouring not for men, but for the
great Lord and Master Himself; know-
ing that ye have a Master, from whom
ye will receive the glorious inheritance
as your recompense, whether or not
ye may be defrauded of your due by
men. Yes, Christ is your Master and
ye are his slaves. He that does a
wrong shall be requited for his wrong-
doing. I say not this of slaves only,
but of masters also. There is no par-
tiality, no respect of persons, in God’s
distribution of rewards and punish-
ments. Therefore, ye masters, do ye
also on your part deal justly and equi-
tably by your slaves, knowing that ye
too have a Master in heaven.’

22. Oi SovAxn| The relations of
masters and slaves, both here and in
the companion epistle (Hphes, vi.
5—9), are treated at greater length
than is usual with St Paul. Here
especially the expansion of this topic,
compared with the brief space assign-
ed to the duties of wives and husbands
(vv. 18,19), or of children and parents
(vv. 20, 21), deserves to be noticed.
The fact is explained by a contempo-
rary incident in the Apostle’s private
life. His intercourse with Onesimus
had turned his thoughts in this di-
rection. See above, p.33, and the in-
troduction to the Epistle to Philemon:
comp. also the note on ver. 11.

6pOarpodovreia] ‘eye-service, as
Ephes, vi. 6: comp. Apost. Const. iv.

I2 pr os opOadrpddovros GAN os gu-
Aodéaroros. This happy expression
would seem to be the Apostle’s own
coinage. At least there are no traces
of it earlier. Compare €@edoOpynokeia
ii. 23. The reading dpOarpodovrAeia
is better supported than odOadpodov-
Aeiats, though the plural is rendered
slightly more probable in itself by its
greater difficulty.

dvOpwrdapeckxot| Again in Ephes. vi.
6. It is a Lxx word, Ps. lii. 6, where
the Greek entirely departs from the
Hebrew: comp. also dvépwrapeckeiv
Ign. Rom. 2, avOperapéckera Justin
Apol.i. 2 (p. 53 E). So dxAoapéokns
or 6xAodpeckos, Timo Phlias. in Diog.
Laert. iv. 42 (vv. Il.).

dzornre kapdias| As in Ephes. vi. 5,
i.e. ‘with undivided service’; a Lxx
expression, I Chron. xxix. 17, Wisd.i.1.

tov Kupwoyv] ‘the one Lord and
Master, as contrasted with rots xara
gdpxa kupios: the idea being carried
out in the following verses. The re-
ceived text, by substituting rov Cecoy,
blunts the edge of the contrast.

23. épyatecOe] ive. ‘do it dili-
gently,’ an advance upon zroujre.

ovk avOperos] For the use of ov
rather than 7) in antitheses, see Wi-
ner § lv. p. 601 sq. The negative
here is wholly unconnected with the
imperative, and refers solely to ro
Kupig.

24. amo Kuptov] ‘ However you may
be treated by your earthly masters,
you have still @ Master who will re-
compense you.’ The absence of tho
definite article here (comp. iv. 1) is
the more remarkable, because it is
studiously inserted in the context, vv.
22—24, Tov Kupiov, T@ Kupig, TO Kv-
pio. In the parallel passage Ephes.
vi. 8 it is mapa Kvupiov: for the differ-
ence between the two see Gal. i. 12.

IIT. 24, 25]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 229

Tw Kupiw, kat ovK dvOpwrros, *eiddTes OTL dro Kupiov
Brose terty THY avTaTOooTW TIS kAnpovoyias: Tw
Kupiw Xpiat@ SovAevere> 6 yap adicwv Kopioerat 6

THY dvrarddoow] ‘the just recom-
pense, a common word both in the
Lxx and in classical writers, though
not occurring elsewhere in the New
Testament; comp. dvramddopa Luke
xiv. 12, Rom. xi. 9. The double com-
pound involves the idea of ‘exact re-
quital. ,

Ths KAnpovopias]| ‘which consists in
the inheritance, the genitive of appo-
sition: see the note on r7v pepida Tov
kAjpov, i. 12. There is a paradox in-
volved in this word: elsewhere the
dodAos and the xAnpovopos are con-
trasted (Matt. xxi. 3538, etc., Rom.
viii. 15—17, Gal. iv. 1, 7), but here
the Soddos is the kAnpovopos. This he
is because, though dodXos avépdérrer, he
is dmeevOepos Kupiov (1 Cor. vii. 22)
and thus KAnpovopyos 81a Ceod (Gal. iv.
7); comp. Hermas Sum. V. 2 wa ovy-
kAnpovopos yévntat 6 SovAos TO vid
(with the context).

T® Kupio «.7.A.] Le. ‘ you serve as
your master the great Master Christ,
This clause is added to explain how
is meant by the preceding dzo Kupiov.
#or this application of Kvpios com-
pare (besides the parallel passage,
Hphes. vi. 6—g) 1 Cor. vii. 22 0 yap
ev Kupi@ kdnOeis Sovdos daededOepos
Kupiov €oriv xr. It seems best to
take SovAevere here as an indicative,
rather than as an imperative; for (1)
The indicative is wanted to explain
the previous dé Kupiov; (2) The i im-
perative would seem to require ws ro
Kupi, as in Ephes. vi. 7 (the correct
text). On the other hand see Rom.
xii. 11.

25. 6 yap doikov x7.d.] Who is
this unrighteous person? The slave
who defrauds his master of his ser-
vice, or the master who defrauds his
slave of his reward? Some interpret-
ers confine it exclusively to the for-
mer; others to the latter. It seems

best to suppose that both are included.
The connexion of the sentence 6 yap
dduxcav (where yap, not dé¢, is certainly
the right reading) points to the slave.
On the other hand the expr ession
which follows, ro Sixacov kal tiv iod-
TyTa k.T.r., suggests the master. Thus
there seems to be a twofold reference ;
the warning is suggested by the case
of the slave, but it is extended to the
case of the master; and this accords
with the > parallel passage, Ephes. vi. 8
ExaoTos 0 ay Toon dyabov TOUTO Kopi-
aera Tapa Kupiov, etre SovAos etre
éAevbepos.

The recent fault of Onesimus would
make the Apostle doubly anxious to
emphasize the duties of the slave to-
wards the master, lest in his love for
the offender he should seem to con-
done the offence. This same word
7Oixnoev is used by St Paul to describe
the crime of Onesimus in Philem. 18.
But on the other hand it is the Apo-
stle’s business to show that justice
has a double edge. There must be a
reciprocity between the master and
theslave. The philosophers of Greece
taught, and the laws of Rome assumed,
that the slave was a chattel. Buta
chattel could have no rights. It would
be absurd to talk of treating a chattel
with justice. St Paul places the rela-
tions of the master and the slave in a
wholly different light. Justice and
equity are the expression of the Di-
vine mind: and with God there is no
mpocwmoAnpwia. With Him the claims
of the slave are as real as the claims
of the master.

kouicerat| For this sense of the
middle, ‘to recover,’ ‘to get back,’
and so (with an accusative of the thing
to be recompensed), ‘to be requited
for’, see e.g. Lev. xx. 17 dywapriav Kopt-
ovvrat, 2 Cor. v. 10 kopionras €xaoTos
ta Ova Tov oodparos; comp. Barnab,

230

387 \ 5) sf /
HOlKNOEV, Kal OUK EoTW TpoTwToAnMia.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

ELvt

LV 2. Oe

7 \ / \ N > / a , /
KuUplol, TO Sikalov Kat Thy iooTnTa Tots SovAoLs Tra e-

eaGe, Eldo 5 i vuets evere KU 2y OU A)
x » ELOOTES OTL Kal UpeEts ExeTE Kuvpiov Ev ovpava.

§ 4.6 Kupios admpocamo\numtws Kpivet
Tov KOcpov’ €xactos, Kabas émoinger,
kouettat. In the parallel passage
Ephes. vi. 8, the form is certainly xo-
picerac: here it is more doubtful, the
authorities being more equally divided
between kopweira and kopioera. See
however the note on yvapicovow iv. 9.

mpocwmoAnpwia| On this word see
the note Gal. ii. 6. This tpoowmoAnp-
wWia, though generally found on the
side of rank and power, may also be
exercised in favour of the opposite ;
Lev. xix. 15 o¥ AnWy TpoceToV TTw-
x00 ovde pr Oavpdons mpdcwroy duva-
arov. There would be a tendency in
the mind of the slave to assume that,
because the mpocwmoAnpyia of man
was on the side of the master, there
must be a corresponding mpocwzo-
Anuwia of God on the side of the
slave. This assumption is corrected
by St Paul.

IV. 1. rv icornral ‘ equity, ‘fair-
ness’; comp. Plut. Sol. et Popl. Comp. 3
vopov icornra mapexovtov. Somewhat
similarly Lysias Or. Fun. 77 (speak-
ing of death) ovre yap rovs wovnpovs
Umepopa ovTe tovs ayabovs Pavpages,
GAN icov é€avtovy mapéxXer maow.
It seems a mistake to suppose that
ioorns here has anything to do with
the treatment of slaves as equals
(comp. Philem. 16). When connected
with 76 dixacoy, the word naturally sug-
gests an even-handed, impartial treat-
ment, and is equivalent to the Latin
aequitas: comp. Arist. Top. vi. 5 (p.
143) 6 thy Stkaocdyny (Aéyor) E&wv ico-
THTOS ToinTiKny 7) SeaveunTLKHY TOV LOO,
Philo de Creat. Princ. 14 (11. p. 373)
€ote yap ioorns...untnp Sikaocvrns,
Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 6 (p. 764) pera
Sixarocvyys kal ivdtntos tis mpos Tovs
éemiotpehovras. Thus in Arist. Zh.
Nic. v. I r6 Sixavov and rd icoy are
regarded as synonymes, and in Plut.

Mor. p. 719 the relation of icérns to
dixacérns is discussed. The word here
is used in the same sense in which the
adjective occurs in the common ex-
pressions icos Sixaorys, isos axpoarys,
etc. Philo, describing the Hssene
condemnation of slavery, says, Omn.
prob. lib. 12 (11. p. 457) katayweckovat
te Tay Seomoray, ov povoy ws adiKor,
igornra Avpatvopévov, GAA Kal Gs doe-
Bay «.7.d., but he possibly does mean
‘ equality’ rather than ‘ equity’
mapéxecbe] ‘exhibit on your part.
The middle rapéxeo Oat, ‘to afford from
oneself,’ will take different shades of
meaning according to the context, as
‘to furnish one’s quota’ (e.g. Herod.
Vili. 1,2) or ‘to put forward one’s re-
presentative’ (esp. of witnesses, e.g.
Plato Apol. 19D). Here the idea is
‘reciprocation, the master’s duty as
corresponding to the slave’s.

éyere Kipiov] As Ephes. vi. 9; comp.
1 Cor. Vii. 22 6 éAevOepos KAnGeis Sov-
Ads e€orw Xpiorod.

2—6, ‘Be earnest and unceasing
in prayer; keep your hearts and minds
awake while praying: remember also
(as I have so often told you) that
thanksgiving is the goal and crown of
prayer. Meanwhile in your petitions
forget notus—myself Paul—my fellow-
labourer Timothy —- your evangelist
Epaphras— all the teachers of the
Gospel ; but pray that God may open
a door for the preaching of the word,
to the end that we may proclaim the
free offer of grace to the Gentiles—
that great mystery of Christ for which .
I am now a prisoner in bonds. So
shall I declare it fearlessly, as I am
bound to proclaim it. Walk wisely
and discreetly in all your dealings with
unbelievers; allow no opportunity to
slip through your hands, but buy up
every passing moment. Let your lan-
guage be always pervaded with grace

9S a ee

IV. 2—+4]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

231

*Tq mpocevyn mporKapTeEpelTe, ypnyopouvTes €y
~ wi > ; & / \ \ ~
auTH Ev evyapioTia® FmpoTEVXOMEVOL AMA Kal TEPL HUY,
e/ via \ > / en / ~ , ~ \
iva 0-GQeos avolen nuiv Gupav Tov Noyou, AaAnoat TO
o - “\ \ / J
puatnpioy Tov Xprrrov, or oO Kat dedeucu tiva pave-

and seasoned with salt. So will you
know how to give a fit answer to each
man, as the occasion demands,’

2. mpooxaprepeire] ‘cling closely

to’, ‘remain constant to’ (comp. Mark

lii. 9, Acts viii. 13, x. 7), and so ‘con-
tinue stedfast in.’ This word occurs
again with ty mpocevyn, tais mpocev-
xais, Acts i. 14, ii. 42, vi. 4, Rom. xii.
12. The construction is with a simple
dative both in the New Testament
(ll. ce.) and in classical writers, except
where it stands absolutely (Acts ii. 46,
Rom. xiii. 6). The injunction here
corresponds to the ddvaAcinras mpoc-
evxeoOe of 1 Thess. v. 17.

ypnyopovrres| Long continuance in
prayer is apt to produce listlessness.
Hence the additional charge that the
heart must be awake, if the prayer
is to have any value. The word is not
to be taken literally here, but meta-
phorically. In Matt. xxvi. 41 etc., ypy-
yopetre kal mpocevyeobe, the idea is not
quite the same.

ev evxapioriaj As the crown of all
prayer; see the notes on i. 12, ii. 7.

3. npav| ‘us, ‘the Apostles and
preachers of the Gospel,’ with refer-
ence more especially to Timothy (i. 1)
and Epaphras (iv. 12, 13). Where
the Apostle speaks of himself alone,
he uses the singular (ver. 3, 4 dédepa:,
davepwow). Indeed there is no rea-
son to think that St Paul ever uses an
‘epistolary’ plural, referring to himself
solely: see on 1 Thess, iii. 1. :

iva k.t.A.] On the sense of iva after
mpooevxerOa etc., see the note on i. 9.

Ovpay tov Aoyou] ‘a door of admis-
sion for the word, i.e. ‘an oppor-
tunity of preaching the Gospel,’ as
I Cor. xvi. 9 Oipa yap pot dvéwyev
Heyakn Kal evepyns, 2 Cor. ii. 12
Ovpas por dvewypérns év Kupio: comp.

Plut. Mor. p. 674 D Saomep mwvAns av-
otxdeions, ovK avTégéyov...cuvermiovat
mavrodarois dxkpoauacw. Similarly etou-
dos is used in 1 Thess. i.9,ii. 1. The
converse application of the metaphor
appears in Acts xiv. 27 jvoikev rors
eOveow Ovpay micrews, where the door
is opened not to the teachers, but to
the recipients of the Gospel. Accord-
ing to another interpretation (suggest-
ed by Ephes. vi. 19 iva pos S069 Adyos
e€v dvoige. Tov ordpuaros pov) it is ex-
plained ‘the door of our speech, i.e.
‘our mouth’: comp. Ps. exli (exl). 3,
Mic. vii. 5, Ecclus. xxviii.25. But the
parallel passages do not favour this
sense, nor will the words themselves
admit it. In that case for jyivy d'pay
Tov Aoyou We should require rv Ovpay
Tav Adyewr [nuoy]. ‘The word’ here is
‘the Gospel,’ as frequently.

_ Aadfjoa ‘so as to speak, the in-
finitive of the consequence, like eidévat
ver. 6; see Winer § xliv. p. 400,

TO pvoTnpLoy k.T.A.| i.e. the doctrine
of the free admission of the Gentiles.
For the leading idea which St Paul
in these epistles attaches to ‘the mys-
tery’ of the Gospel, see the note on
i. 26.

d¢ o] St Paul might have been still
at large, if he had been content to
preach a Judaic Gospel. It was be-
cause he contended for Gentile liberty,
and thus offended Jewish prejudices,
that he found himself a prisoner. See
Acts xxi. 28, xxii. 21, 22, xxiv. 5, 6,
xxv. 6,8. The other reading, 87 dv,
destroys the point of the sentence.

kat Sedenar] 2 Tim. ii. 9 péype deo-
pov, Philem. 9 yuri dé Kal déopn0s.

4. wa davepdow x.r.d.] This is
best taken as dependent on the pre-
vious clause iva 6 Gcéds...ro} Xpiorou.
For instances of a double wa, where

232

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[IV. 5,6

’ , e ~ ~ 9 fA ~
pwow avTo, ws Oef pe Nadjoa. Sév copia rEepirareiTe

\ \ af N \
mpos Tous €€wW, TOY Kaloo

the second is not coordinated with,
but subordinated to, the first, see the
note on Gal. iii. 14. The immediate
purport of the Colossians’ prayers
must be that the Apostle should have
all opportunities of preaching the
Gospel: the ulterior object, that he
should use these opportunities boldly.

5. év copia] Matt. x. 16 yiveode
ovv hpdvipor ws of ders.

tous ¢&w]| ‘those without the pale’
of the Church, the unbelievers; as in
1 Cor. v. 12, 13, 1 Thess. iv. 12. So oi
é£wOev, 1 Tim. iii. 7. The believers on
the other hand are of gc, I Cor. y. 12.
This mode of speaking was derived
from the Jews, who called the heathen
Ds (Schéttgen on 1 Cor. /. c.),
translated of éxros Ecclus. Prol. and
of ¢Ewbev Joseph. Ant. xv. 9. 2.

efayopatopevot K.t.A.|] ‘buying up
the opportunity for yoursetves, let-
ting no opportunity slip you, of saying
and doing what may further the cause
of God’: comp. Ephes. v. 16. The ex-
pression occurs also in Dan. ii. 8 ofda
OTe Katpov vpeis eEayopacere, i.e. ‘are
eager to gain time.’ Somewhat simi-
lar are the phrases rov xpovov Kepdai-
vel, TO mapoy Kepdaivey. So too Seneca
Ep. i. 1 ‘Tempus...collige et serva.’
In much the same sense Ignatius says,
Polyc. 3 rovs Katpovs karapavOave. For
this sense of ¢Eayopatw ‘coemo’ (closely
allied in meaning to ovvayopatw), see
Polyb. iii. 42. 2 eEnyopace wap’ avrav
Tad Te povoEvAa mAoia mavra K.T.d.;
Plut. Vit. Crass.2. More commonly
the word signifies ‘to redeem’ (see the
note on Gal. iii. 13), and some would
assign this sense to it here; but no ap-
propriate meaning is thus obtained. In
Mart. Polyc. 2 Sia puas @pas thy aid-
vov KoAaow ée€ayopafouevos it means
‘buying off, a sense in which e&wvei-
oa occurs several times. The reason
for the injunction is added in Ephes.
V. 16, drt ai ruepat wrovnpai eiow: the

éEayopaCouevor’ °S Aovyos

prevailing evil of the times makes the
opportunities for good more precious.

6. ev xapire| ‘with grace, favour,
i.e. ‘acceptableness, ‘pleasingness’;
comp. Eccles. x. 12 Adyor oroparos
copov xapis, Ps. xliv (xlv). 3 e£exvOy
xapis ev xeiAeci cov, Hcclus, xxi. 16 emi
xeEtAous cuverod evpeOnoerat xapis. In
classical writers xapis Adyar is a still
more common connexion; e.g. Demosth.
c. Phil. i. 38, Dionys, Hal. de Lys.
§§ 10, 11, Plut. Vit. Mar. 44.

ddart] Comp. Mark ix. 50 éay dé rod
dias Gvadov yévnta, ev Tim avro
aptucete; exere ev Eavtois dda. The
salt has a twofold purpose. (1) It
gives a flavour to the discourse and
recommends it to the palate: comp.
Job vi. 6 ef BpwOnoerar apros dvev
adds; ef d€ Kal ort yedpa ev prpace
kevots; in which passage the first
clause was rendered by Symmachus
pyte BpwOjocerae dvaptutov TH py
exew dda; This is the primary idea
of the metaphor here, as the word 7p-
Tupevos seems to show. (2) It preserves
from corruption and renders whole-
some; Ign. Magn. 10 ddicOnre év
avt@ wa py diapOapy tis ev vyiv,
ere atd THs oops édeyxOnoecbe.
Hence the Pythagorean saying, Diog.
Laert. viii. 1. 35 of ddes wav codfovow
6 Tt kat mapaddBwor. It may be in-
ferred that this secondary applica-
tion of the metaphor was present to
the Apostle’s mind here, because in
the parallel epistle, Ephes. iv. 29, he
sayS mas Noyos wampos ek Tod oTé-
patos Uuay pn exmopeverOw x7r.rA. In
the first application the opposite to
cAatt nptupevos Would be papos ‘in-
sipid’ (Luke xiv. 34); in the second,
campos ‘corrupt.’

Heathen writers also insisted that
discourse should be ‘seasoned with
salt’; e.g. Cic. de Orat. i. 34 ‘ facetia-
rum quidam lepos quo, tanquam sale,
perspergatur omnis oratio.’ They

IV. 7] EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 233

-~ > / e/ , Foe. Id ~
UMaV TaVTOTE EV YapLTL, AAATL HoTUMEVOS, EldEVaL UjAs
a / > 14
mus et évl ExactTw amrokplvec Oat.
\ 9 SO / / ¢ oa / € 3
‘Ta xaT €ue TavTa yvwpioe Upiv Tuyixos 0 aya-

Mikewise dwelt on the connexion be-

tween yapis and dies; e.g. Plat. Mor.
p. 514 F ydpw tid mapackevdgovres
G\AjAots, Gomep adat Tois Aoyas epy-
Svvover thy SiatpiByv, p.697 D (comp. p.
685 A) of modXol xapitas Kadovow [rov
Gra], ore emt ta mAciora pyvipevos
evdppoota Th yevoet Kal mpoaDiAy trovet
kal kexapiopéeva, p. 669 A 7 dé ray addy
dvvapis...xdpiv avt@ kal nSovyv mpoc-
tiOnot, Dion Chrys. Or. xviii. § 13.
Their notion of ‘salt’ however was
wit, and generally the kind of wit
which degenerated into the evrpare-
Aia denounced by St Paul in Ephes.
y. 4 (see the note there).

The form ddas is common in the
Luxx and Greek Testament. Other-
wise it is rare : see Buttmann Gramm.
I. p. 220, and comp. Plut. Mor. 668 F.

eidévar | ‘so as to know’; see the note
On AaAjoa Ver. 3.

évi éxdor@] ‘Not only must your
conversation be opportune as regards
the time; it must also be appropriate
as regards the person.’ The Apostle’s
precept was enforced by his own ex-
ample, for he made it a rule to be-
come Trois maow maya, iva Tayres Th
vas a@on (I Cor, ix. 22).

7—9. ‘You will learn everything
about me from Tychicus, the beloved
brother who has ministered to me
and served with me faithfully in the
Lord. This indeed was my purpose
in sending him to you: that you might
be informed how matters stand with
me, and that he might cheer your
hearts and strengthen your resolves
by the tidings. Onesimus will accom-
pany him—a faithful and beloved bro-
ther, who is one of yourselves, a Co-
lossian. These two will inform you of
all that is going on here’

7. Ta kar’ éywé mavral ‘all that
relates to me’; see the note on
Phil. i. 12, and comp. Bion in Diog.

Laert. iv. 47. So Acts xxv. 14 ra xara
Tov IadaAov. ‘

yvopioec| On this word see the
note Phil, i, 22.

Tvxixos| Tychicus was charged by
St Paul at this same time with a more
extended mission. He was entrusted
with copies of the circular letter,
which he was enjoined to deliver in
the principal churches of proconsular
Asia (see above, p. 37, and the intro-
duction to the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians). This mission would bring him
to Laodicea, which was one of these
great centres of Christianity (see p. 8);
and, as Colossz was only a few miles
distant, the Apostle would naturally
engage him to pay a visit to the Co-
lossians. At the same time the pre-
sence of an authorised delegate of St
Paul, as Tychicus was known to be,
would serve to recommend Onesimus,
who owing to his former conduct
stood in every need of such a recom-
mendation. The two names Tvyxikos
and ’Ovjomos occur in proximity in
Phrygian inscriptions found at Alten-
tash (Bennisoa?) Boeckh 3857r sq.
appx.

Tychicus was a native of proconsu-
lar Asia (Acts xx. 4) and perhaps of
Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12: see Philippi-
ans p. 11). He is found with St Paul
at three different epochs in his life,
(1) He accompanied him when on
his way eastward at the close of the
third missionary journey 4.D. 58 (Acts
xx. 4), and probably like Trophimus
(Acts xxi. 29) went with him to Jeru-
salem (for the words dyp: ris "Acias
must be struck out in Acts xx. 4). It
is probable indeed that Tychicus, to-
gether with others mentioned among
St Paul’s numerous retinue on this
occasion, was a delegate appointed by
his own church according to the Apo-
stle’s injunctions (1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4) to

234

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[IV. 8

A PEN \ A \ if >
mnTos adoeApos Kal mieTos Stakovos Kat auvdovAos éy

e\ af
Sov émeuya mpos

Kupio*
bear the contributions of his brethren
to the poor Christians of Judeea; and
if so, he may possibly be the person
commended as the brother o¢ 6 éra-
vos € T@ EVayyediw Oia Tacav Tov €k-
kAnutey (2 Cor. viil. 18): but this will
depend on the interpretation of the
best supported reading in Acts xx. 5
ovrot d€ mpocedOovtes eyevoy uas ev
Tpwad:. (2) We find Tychicus again
in St Paul’s company at the time with
which we are immediately concerned,
when this epistle was written, proba-
bly towards the end of the first Ro-
man captivity, A.D. 62, 63 (see Philip-
plans p. 31 8q.). (3) Once more, at the
close of St Paul’s life (about A.D. 67),
he appears again to have associated,
himself with the Apostle, when his
name is mentioned in connexion with
a mission to Crete (Tit. iii. 12) and
another to Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12).
For the legends respecting him, which
are slight and insignificant, see Act.
Sanct. Boll. April 29 (U1. p. 619).
Tychicus is not so common a name
as some others which occur in the
New Testament, e.g. Onesimus, Tro-
phimus; but it is found occasionally
in inscriptions belonging to Asia Mi-
nor, e.g. Boeckh C. JL. 2918, 3665,
[3857 c], 3857 r, (comp. 3865 i, etc.);
and persons bearing it are commemo-
rated on the coins of both Magnesia
ad Maeandrum (Mionnet III. p. 153 sq.,
Suppl. vi. p. 236) and Magnesia ad
Sipylum (7. Iv. p. 70). The name
occurs also in Roman inscriptions; e.g.
Muratori, pp. DCCCOXVII, MCCOXCIV,
mMMLY. Along with several other
proper names similarly formed, this
word is commonly accentuated Tuyxtxos
(Chandler Greek Accentuation § 255),
and so it stands in all the critical
editions, though according to rulo
(Winer § vi. p. 58) it should be Tuxtkos.
kat micros K.T.A.] The connexion of
the words is not quite obvious. It
seems best however to take év Kupip

Uuas els avTO TOTO, iva
as referring to the whole clause micribs
Oudxovos kat ovyOovAos rather than tu
avvdovdos alone: for (1) The two sub-
stantives are thus bound together by
the preceding micros and the following
ev Kupio in a natural way: (2) The at-
tachment of év Kupie to morés didko-
vos is suggested by the parallel pas-
sage Ephes. vi. 21 Tuycxos 6 dyannros
adedgos kal muords Sidkovos €v Kupion
The question of connecting ¢v Kupio
with adeAdds as well need not be en-
tertained, since the idea of ddeddis,
‘a Christian brother,’ is complete in
itself: see the note on Phil.i.14. The
adjective moros will here have its
passive sense, ‘trustworthy, sted fast,’
as also in ver. 9: see Galatians p.
I¢4 sq.

dudxovos| ‘minister, but to whom?
To the churches, or to St Paul him-
self? The following ovvdovA0s sug-
gests the latter as the prominent idca
here. So in Acts xix. 22 Timothy and
Erastus are described as dvo ray éd:a-
kovovyvtwy aire. Tychicus himself also
was one of several who ministered to
St Paul about that same time (Acts
xx. 4). It is not probable however,
that dsaxovos has here its strict official
sense, ‘a deacon,’ as in Rom. xvi. 1,
PIMs ay 1 Di, Mi 8, 12:

avvdovdos| The word does not oc-
cur elsewhere in St Paul, except in
i. 7, where it is said of Epaphras. Itis
probably owing to the fact of St Paul’s
applying the term in both these pas-
sages to persons whom he calls dcako-
vot, that cvvdovdos seems to have been
adopted as a customary form of ad-
dress in the early Church on the part
of a bishop, when speaking of a deacon.
In the Ignatian letters for instance,
the term is never used except of dea-
cons; Ephes. 2, Magn. 2, Philad. 4,
Smyrn. 12. Where the martyr has
occasion to speak of a bishop or a
presbyter some other designation is
used instead.

IV. 9]

EPISTLH TO THE COLOSSIANS.

235

~~ \ \ e ~ \ / \ , e a
YvOTE Ta TEPL MoV Kal TapaKkaheon Tas Kapdias UuwY,

Scuv “Ovncinw TO TWITTO
éoTw €€ Uuwr.

8. ereuwa] ‘I send) or ‘I have
sent, @reywa being the epistolary
aorist; see the note on @ypaya, Gal.
vi. 11. Tychicus appears to have ac-
companied the letter itself. For simi-
lar instances of the epistolary émrepya,
éréorevda, etc., see 2 Cor. vill. 18, 22,
ix. 3, Ephes. vi. 22, Phil. ii. 25, 28,
Philem. 11, Hebr. xiii. 22, Polyc.
Phil. 13.

yore Ta wept jay] This must be
preferred to the received reading, yvo
ta mept vporv, for two independent
reasons. (1) The preponderance of
ancient authority is decidedly in its
favour. (2) The emphatic «is avro
tovro iva seems imperatively to de-
mand it. St Paul in the context
twice states the object of Tychicus’
visit to be that the Colossians might
be informed about the Apostle’s own
doings, ra car eye wavta yywpices vpiv
(ver. 7), and mavra vpiv yrapicovew Ta
ode. He could hardly therefore have
described ‘the very purpose’ of his
mission in the same breath as some-
thing quite different. .

It is urged indeed, that this is a
scribe’s alteration to bring the passage
into accordance with Ephes. vi. 21.
But against this it may fairly be ar-
gued that, on any hypothesis as re-
gards the authorship and relation of
the two letters, this strange varia-
tion from yore ra repli nuav to yr@
Ta wept vyov in the author himself is
improbable. On the other hand a
transcriber was under a great temp-
tation to substitute yo for yyare ow-
ing to the following wapaxadéon, and
this temptation would become almost
irresistible, if by any chance zrepi tuay
had been written for wept juoy in the
copy before him, as we find to be the
case in some Mss. See the detached
note on various readings.

mapaxadéon «.T.A.] i.e. ‘encourage

\ ons an) c/
kat ayannT@ addehd@, Os

/ od \ ©.
TAaVTA Ui yYwWploovTlY TA WOE.

you to persevere by his tidings and ex-
hortations.’ The phrase occurs again,
Ephes. vi. 22, 2 Thess. ii. 17: see above
ii.2. The prominent idea in all these
passages is not comfort or consolation
but perseverance in the right way.

9. adv ’Ovncin@| See above, p. 33,
and the introduction to the Epistle to
Philemon.

TO mioT@ k.T.A.| The man whom the
Colossians had only known hitherto,
if they knew him at all, as a worthless
runaway slave, is thus commended to
them as no more a slave but a brother,
no more dishonest and faithless but
trustworthy, no more an object of con-
tempt but of love; comp. Philem. 11,
16.

yvopicovew| This form has rather
better support from the mss than
yvepiodaw: see also above iii. 25. On
the Attic future from verbs in -1¢ in
the Greek Testament generally see
Winer § xiii. p. 88, A. Buttmann p. 32
sq. Is there any decisive instance of
these Attic forms in St Paul, except in
quotations from the Lxx (e.g. Rom. x.
19, xv. 12)?

1o—14. ‘I send you greeting from
Aristarchus who is a fellow-prisoner
with me; from Marcus, Barnabas’
cousin, concerning whom I have al-
ready sent you directions, that you
welcome him heartily, if he pays you
a visit; and from Jesus, surnamed
Justus; all three Hebrew converts.
They alone of their fellow-countrymen
have worked loyally with me in spread-
ing the kingdom of God; and their
stedfastness has indeed been a com-
fort to me in the hour of trial. Greet-
ing also from Epaphras, your fellow-
townsman, a true servant of Christ,
who is ever wrestling in his prayers on
your behalf, that ye may stand firm
in the faith, perfectly instructed and
fully convinced in every will and pur-

26

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[IV. 10

'’Aomaterar vuas “Apiotapyos 6 cuvaltyuadwros

pose of God. I bear testimony to the
earnestness with which he labours for
you and the brethren of Laodicea and
those of Hierapolis. Greeting also
trom Luke the physician, my very
dear friend, and from Demas.’

10, The salutations to Philemon
are sent from the same persons as to
the Colossians, except that in the
former case the name of Jesus Justus
is omitted.

’Apiorapyos] the Thessalonian. He
had started with St Paul on his voy-
age from Jerusalem to Rome, but
probably had parted from the Apostle
at Myra (see Philippians p. 33 8q.).
If so, he must have rejoined him
at Rome at a later date. On this
Aristarchus see Philippians p. 10,

and the introduction to the Epistles*

to the Thessalonians. He would be
well known in procensular Asia, which
he had visited from time to time ;
Acts xix, 29, ¥X..4, xxv. 2;

guvatypdrores pov] In Philem. 23
this honourable title is withheld from
Aristarchus and given to Epaphras.,
In Rom. xvi. 7 St Paul’s kinsmen,
Andronicus and Junias, are so called.
On the possibility of its referring to a
spiritual captivity or subjection see
Philippians p. 11. In favour of this
meaning it may be urged, that, though
St Paul as a prisoner was truly a déc-
pos, he was not strictly an aiyyadoros
‘a prisoner of war’; nor could he have
called himself so, except by a confu-
sion of the actual and metaphorical.
If on the other hand ovvatypararos
refers to a physical captivity, it cannot
easily be explained by any known fact.
The incident in Acts xix. 29 is hardly
adequate. The most probable solu-
tion would be, that his relations with
St Paul in Rome excited suspicion
and led to a temporary confinement.
Another possible hypothesis is that
he voluntarily shared the Apostle’s
captivity by living with him.

Mapxos| doubtless John Mark, who

had been associated with St Paul in
his earlier missionary work; Acts xii.
25, xv. 37 sq. This commendatory
notice is especially interesting as be-
ing the first mention of him since the
separation some twelve years before,
Acts xv. 39. In the later years of the
Apostle’s life he entirely effaced the
unfavourable impression left by his
earlier desertion; 2 Tim.iv. 11 €orw yap
fot evxpnoros eis Stakoviay.

This notice is likewise important in
two other respects. (1) Mark appears
here as commended to a church of
proconsular Asia, and intending to
visit those parts. To the churches of
this same region he sends a salutation
in 1 Pet. v. 13; and in this district
apparently also he is found some few
years later than the present time,
2 Tim. iv. 11. (2) Mark is now resid-
ing at Rome. His connexion with the
metropolis appears also from 1 Pet. v.
13, if BaBvAdy there (as seems most
probable) be rightly interpreted of
Rome; and early tradition speaks of
his Gospel as having been written for
the Romans (Iren. iil. L 1; comp.
Papias in Euseb. JZ. £. iii. 39).

0 dvewios| ‘the cousin’ The term
ave.oi is applied to cousins german,
the children whether of two brothers
or of two sisters or of a brother and
sister, as it is carefully defined in
Pollux iii. 28. This writer adds that
avraveyiou Means neither more nor
iess than dveyuot. AS @ synonyme
we find ¢&ddeAdos, which however is
condemned as a vulgarism; Phryn.
p. 306 (ed. Lobeck). Many instances of
aveyiol are found in different authors
of various ages (e.g. Herod. vii. 5, 82,
ix. 10, Thucyd. i. 132, Plato Charm,
154 B, Gorg. 471 B, Andoc. da Myst.
§ 47, Isaeus Hagn. Her. § 8 8q.,
Demosth. c. Macart. § 24, 27, etc.,
Dion. Hal. A. ZR. i. 79, Plut. Vit. Thes.
7, Vit. Caes. 1, Vit. Brut. 13, Lucian
Dial. Mort. xxix. 1, Hegesipp. in
Euseb. H. £, iv. 22), where the rela-

.

TV. 10]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 237

’ Gi ,
pov, kai Mapxos 6 aveyios BapvaBa, epi ob éhaBere

tionship is directly defined or already
known, and there is no wavering as to
the meaning. This sense also it has in
the Lxx, Num. xxxvi. 11. In very late
writers however (e.g. Io. Malalas
Chron. xvii. p. 424, Io. Damasc. adv.
Const. Cab. 12, IL p. 621; but in Theodt.
H. E. v. 39, which is also quoted by
EK. A. Sophocles Gr. Lex. s. v. for
this meaning, the text is doubtful)
the word comes to be used for a
nephew, properly ddeAdidods; and
to this later use the rendering of
our English versions must be traced.
The German translations also (Luther
and the Ziirich) have ‘Neffe’ The
earliest of the ancient versions (Latin,
Syriac, Egyptian) seem all to translate
it correctly ; not so in every case ap-
parently the later. There is no reason
to suppose that St Paul would or
could have used it in any other than
its proper sense. St Mark’s relation-
ship with Barnabas may have been
through his mother Mary, who is men-
tioned Acts xii. 12. The incidental
notice here explains why Barnabas
should have taken a more favourable
view of Mark’s defection than St
Paul, Acts xv. 37—39. The notices in
this passage and in 2 Tim. iv. 11 show
that Mark had recovered the Apo-
stle’s good opinion. The studious re-
commendation of St Mark in both
passages indicates a desire to efface
the unfavourable impression of the
past.

The name of Mark occurs in five
different relations, as (1) The early
disciple, John Mark, Acts xii. 12, 25,
Xv. 39; (2) The later companion of St
Paul, here and Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iy.
11; (3) The companion and ‘son’ of
St Peter, 1 Pet. v. 13; (4) The evan-
gelist ; (5) The bishop of Alexandria.
Out of these notices some writers get
three or even four distinct persons.
(see the note of Cotelier on Apost.
Const. ii. 57). Hven Tillemont (JZem.
Fcel. 11. p. 89 8a., 503 sq.) assumes two

Marks, supposing (1) (2) to refer to
one person, and (3) (4) (5) to another.
ilis main reason is that he cannot
reconcile the notices of the first with
the tradition (Euseb. H. Z. ii. 15, 16)
that St Mark the evangelist accom-
panied St Peter to Rome in a.p. 43,
having first preached the Gospel in
Alexandria (p. 515). To most persons
however this early date of St Peter’s
visit to Rome will appear quite ir-
reconcilable with the notices in the
Apostolic writings, and therefore
with them Tillemont’s argument will
carry no weight. But in fact Euse-
bius does not say, either that St Mark
went with St Peter to Rome, or that
he had preached in Alexandria before
this. The Scriptural notices suggest
that the same Mark is intended in all
the occurrences of the name, for they
are connected together by personal
links (Peter, Paul, Barnabas); and the
earliest forms of tradition likewise
identify them.

BapvaBa| On the affectionate tone
of St Paul’s language, whenever he
mentions Barnabas after the colli-
sion at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sq.) and
the separation of missionary spheres
(Acts xv. 39), see the note on Gal. ii.
13. It has been inferred from the
reference here, that inasmuch as Mark
has rejoined St Paul, Barnabas must
have died before this epistle was
written (about A.D. 63); and this has
been used as an argument against
the genuineness of the letter bear-
ing his name (Hefele Sendschr. d.
Apost. Barnadb. p. 29 8q.); but this
argument is somewhat precarious.
From 1 Cor. ix.6 we may infer that
he was still living, a.p. 57. The
notices bearing on the biography of
Barnabas are collected and discussed
by Hefele, p. 1 sq.

€ddBere evrodas| These injunctions
must have been communicated pre-
viously either by letter or by word of
mouth: for it cannot be a question

238

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

BREE a:

> / \ of \ ~ /
évToNas, Eav €\On apos vuas, deEacbe avtov, “Kal

al , ~ ’ lo
Incovs 6 Aeyouevos “lovorTos, of OvTES EK TEpLTOMTS*
© /, \ ? Ni Ton a 9
OUTOL MOVaL GuUVEpo! Ets THY BaciAElay TOU CEU, O'TIWES

here of an epistolary aorist. The
natural inference is, that they were
sent by St Paul himself, and not by
any one else, e.g. by St Peter or St
Barnabas, as some have suggested.
Thus the notice points to earlier com-
munications between the Apostle and
Colossee.

But what was their tenour? It
seems best to suppose that this is
given in the next clause éay €dOy
«7A. By an abrupt change to the
oratio recta the injunction is repeat-
ed as it was delivered; comp. Ps.
cv (civ). I5 #AeyEev vmép avray Ba-
oideis’ Mt anode x.7.A. After verbs

signifying ‘to command, charge, etc.,’s

there is a tendency to pass from the
oblique to the direct; e.g. Luke v. 14,
Acts i. 4, xxili. 22. The reading 6dé-
éaoba gives the right sense, but can
hardly be correct. If this construc-
tion be not accepted, it is vain to
speculate what may have been the
tenour of the injunction.

II. xat "Incovs] He is not men-
tioned elsewhere. Even in the Epi-
stle to Philemon his name is omitted.
Probably he was not a man of any
prominence in the Church, but his
personal devotion to the Apostle
prompted this honourable mention.
Hor the story which makes him bishop
of Eleutheropolis in Palestine, see Le
Quien Oriens Christ. 11. p. 633.

*Iovcros| A common name or sur-
name of Jews and proselytes, denot-
ing obedience and devotion to the
law. It is applied to two persons in
the New Testament, besides this Je-
sus; (1) Joseph Barsabbas, Acts i. 23;
(2) A proselyte at Corinth, Acts xviii.
7. It occurs twice in the list of early
Jewish Christian bishops of Jerusa-
~ lem, in Euseb. HZ. £. iii. 35, iv. 5. It
was borne by a Jew of Tiberias who
wrote the history of the Jewish war

(Joseph. Vit. §§ 9, 65), and by a son
of the historian Josephus himself (70.
§ 1). It occurs in the rabbinical writ-
ings (NOD or WD, Schdttgen on
Acts i. 23, Zunz Judennamen p. 20),
and in monumental inscriptions from
Jewish cemeteries in various places
(Boeckh C.J. no. 9922, 9925; Revue
Archéologique 1860, 1. p. 348; Gar:
rucci Dissertaziont Archeologiche i.
p. 182). So also the corresponding
female name Justa (Garrucci /.c. p.
180). In Clem. Hom. ii. 19, ili. 73, iv.
I, xiii. 7, the Syrophoenician woman
of the Gospels is named ’lodara,
doubtless because she is represented
in this Judaizing romance as a prose-
lytess (apoondAvtos xiii. 7) who strictly
observes the Mosaic ordinances (rjv
vopipov avadeEapévy modurelav ii. 20),
and is contrasted with the heathen
‘dogs’ (ra €@yn éotxdta Kvoiv li. 19)
who disregard them. In some cases
Justus might be the only name of the
person, as a Latin rendering of the
Uebrew Zadok; while in others, as
here and in Acts i. 23, it is a surname.
Its Greek equivalent, 6 Sixaios, is the
recognised epithet of James the Lord’s
brother: see Galatians, p. 348.

of dwres «.T.A.| ie. ‘converts from
Judaism’ (see the note Gal. ii. 12),
or perhaps ‘belonging to the Cir-
cumcision’; but in this latter case
nepttouns, though without the article,
must be used in a concrete sense,
like rijs meptrouas, for ‘the Jews.’
Of Mark and of Jesus the fact is
plain from their name or their con-
nexions. Of Aristarchus we could not
have inferred a Jewish origin, inde-
pendently of this direct statement.

povot| i.e. of the Jewish Christians
in Rome. On this antagonism of the
converts from the Circumcision in the
metropolis, see Philippians p. 16 sq.
The words however must not be closely

IV. 12]

évyernOnoay or mapnyopia.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

239

“domaleTat Uuas Emadpas

~ ~ al ~ / ,

6 退 vuwr, SovrAos Xpiotov ‘Inco’, mavTote adywnCo-
ro aA lant e/ “~ /

JLEVOS UTrEp UUwY eV Tals TpoTEVXals, iva oTadnre Té-

pressed, as if absolutely no Jewish
Christian besides had remained friend-
ly; they will only imply that among
the more prominent members of
the body the Apostle can only name
these three as stedfast in their alle-
giance: comp. Phil. ii. 20 ovééva eyo
iaowuyov ... mavres yap x7.d. (with
the note).

tiv Baoweiav x.7.A.] See the note on
i, 13.

oirives x..d.] ‘men whom TI found
etc.; comp. Acts xxviii. 15 ovs idov
6 IlatAos evxapiornoas TG Oe@ EhaBev
Oapoos, and see Philippians p. 17.
For oirwes, not specifying the indi-
viduals, but referring them to their
class characteristics, see the notes on
Gal. iv. 24, v. 19, Phil. iii. 7, iv. 3.

mapnyopia| ‘ encouragement, ‘ com-
fort.” The range of meaning in this
word is even wider than in mapapv-
Gia Or mapdxkAnors (see the note Phil.
ii. 1). The verb wapnyopeivy denotes
either (1) ‘ to exhort, encourage’ (He-
rod. v. 104, Apoll. Rhod. ii. 64);
(2) ‘to dissuade’ (Herod. ix. 54, 55);
(3) ‘to appease, ‘quiet’ (Plut. Vit.
Pomp. 13, Mor. p. 737 ©); or (4) ‘to
console, comfort’ (Aesch. Hum. 507).
The word however, and its derivates
mapnyopia, mapyyopnua, mapyyopiés,
mapnyopytikos, Were used especially as
medical terms, in the sense of ‘as-
suaging, ‘alleviating’; e.g. Hippocr.
PP- 392, 393, 394, Galen xiv. p. 335,
446, Plut. Mor. pp. 43 D, 142 D; and
perhaps owing to this usage, the idea
of consolation, comfort, is on the whole
predominant in. the word; e.g. Plut.

Mor. p. 56 & ras émt rois druxjpace

mapnyopias, p. 118 A Trois adatpoupévors
ras Aimas dia Ths yevvaias Kai cepvis
mapnyopias, Vit. Cim. 4 én mapnyopia
Tov mévOouvs. In Plut. Mor. p. 599 B
mapnyopia and avynyopia are contrast-

ed, as the right and wrong me-
thod of dealing with the sorrows of
the exile; and the former is said to
be the part of men mappnovafopever
kat Ovdackovr@y OTe TO AvrTEicOa Kal
Tamewwodv éavtov éml mavtl pév axpn-
OTOY €0Tt K.T.d.

12. *“Enappas]| His full name would
be Epaphroditus, but he is always
called by the shortened form Epa-
phras, and must not be confused with
the Philippian Epaphroditus (see Phi-
lippians p. 60), who also was with St
Paul at one period of his Roman
captivity. Of Epaphras, as the Hvan-
gelist of Colossee, and perhaps of the
neighbouring towns, see above, pp. 29
8q., 34 Sq.

6 €€ vuav] ‘who belongs to you,’
‘who is one of you, i.e. a native, or
at least an inhabitant, of Colosse, as
in the case of Onesimus ver. 9 ; comp.
Acts iy. 6, xxi. 8, Rom. xvi. 10, 11,
1 Cor. xii. 16, Phil. iv. 22, ete.

dovAos X. *1.] This title, which the
Apostle uses several times of himself,
is not elsewhere conferred on any
other individual, except once on
Timothy (Phil. i. 1), and probably
points to exceptional services in the
cause of the Gospel on the part of
Epaphras.

aywvifopevos| ‘wrestling’; comp.
Rom. xv. 30 cuvayevicacOai por év
tais mpowevxais. See also the great
ayevia of prayer in Luke xxii. 44.
Comp. Justin Apol. ii. 13 (p. 51 B)
Kal «vxopevos Kal trappdyos dyoutd-
pevos. See alsoi. 29, ii 1, with the
notes.

orabnre| ‘ stand fast, doubtless the
correct reading rather than orite
which the received text has; comp.
Matt. ii. 9, xxvii. 11, where also the
received text substitutes the weaker
word.

240

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[IV.13

\ , ~~

AEtot Kat meEmANpodopynmevor ev mravTi OeAnpaTt Tov
a ‘4 a \ 9 ~ sf \ 4 e A

Ceov. papTupw yap avT@ OTL EXEL TONUY TOVOY Urép

merAnpopopnuevor| ‘fully persuad-
ed.’ The verb mAnpodopety has several
senses. (1) ‘To fulfil,accomplish’; 2
Tim. iv. 5 ryv Svaxoviay gov mAnpo-
opnaov, ib. ver. 17 TO Kypvypa mAr-
podhopyOn, Clem. Hom. xix. 24 wemdn-
pohopnpéevav viv dn tTpiav nuepar.
So perhaps Hermas Sim. 2 mdnpodo-
povot tov mAovroy adrav... tAnpodo-
povottas Wuyds avray, though it is a
little difficult to carry the same sense
into the latter clause, where the word
seems to signify rather ‘to satisfy,
(2) ‘To persuade fully, to convince’;
Rom. iv. 21 mAnpodopybeis Ste 6 emyy-
yedra Suvaros €orw kal moijoa, xiv.
5 ev T@ idiw voi mAnpodopeicbw, Clem.
Rom. 42 rAnpodopnbévres dia rhs dva-
otacews k.T.X.. Ign. Magn. 8 eis Fo
mAnpopopnOjva rods dmeiOoovras, ib. 11
menAnpopopiabat ev TH yevynoet K.TA.,
Philad. inser. év rH dvactace: adrov
mem Anpopopnpery év mavrTiercer, SNYYN,
I memAnpopopnpevovs eis tov Kuptov
npov, Mart. Ign. 7 wrynpohopiaa rods
dodeveis nuas émi trois mpoyeyovdow,
Clem. Hom. Ep. ad Tac. 10 rerdnpodo-
pnevos Ott ex Ceod Sixatov, 2b, xvii.
13, 14, XIX. 24 cuveriOeuny bs mdnpo-
opovpevos. So too Luxx Eccles. viii. 11
exAnpopopy6n Kapdia tov mommoa TO
trovnpov. (3) ‘ To fill’; Rom. xv. 13 mAn-
popopncat tpas tracns yapas (a doubtful
v.1.),Clem. Rom. 54 ris wemAnpopopnpe-
vos ayanns; Test. xit Patr. Dan 2 77
TrAcovesia erAnpopopyOny rhs avaipéeoews
avrov, where it means ‘I was filled
with, i.e. ‘I was fully bent on, a
sense closely allied tothe last. From
this account it will be seen that there
is in the usage of the word no
justification for translating it ‘most
surely believed’ in Luke i. 1 ray
wemAnpoopypéevoy ev tuiv mpayparor,
and it should therefore be rendered
‘fulfilled, accomplished.’ The word
is almost exclusively biblical and ec-
clesiastical ; and it seems clear that

the passage from Ctesias in Photius.

(Bibl. 72) moddois Adyors Kal Spxots
TAnpopopnaavres MeyaBufov is not
quoted with verbal exactness. In
isocr. Trapez. § 8 the word is now
expunged from the text on the autho-
rity of the mss. For the substantive
tAnpopopia see the note on ii. 2 above.
The reading of the received text here,
TeTAnpopevor, must be rejected as of
inferior authority.

ev mavtt x.rr.] Sin every thing
willed by God’; comp. 1 Kings ix. 11.
So the plural ra OeAnpara in Acts
xiii. 22, Ephes. ii. 3, and several times
in the txx. The words are best con-
nected directly with remAnpodopnpevor.
The passages quoted in the last note
amply illustrate this construction. The
preposition may denote (1) The abode
of the conviction, as Rom. xiv. 5 évr@
iSia vot; or (2) The object of the
conviction, as Ign. Magn. 11 év rH
yevvnoet, Philad. inser. év rj avaora-
oet; or (3) The atmosphere, the
surroundings, of the conviction, as
Philad. inser. év wavri édéeu. This
last seems to be its sense here. The
connexion orafjre...€v, though legiti-
mate in itself (Rom. v. 2, 1 Cor. xv.
1), is not favoured by the order of
the words here.

13. oAdvy wovor] ‘much toil, both
inward and outward, though from the
connexion the former notion seems to
predominate, as in dyéva ii. 1 ; comp.
Plat. Phaedr. p. 247 B movos re Kat
adyov €cxatos Wuy7 mpoxecra. Of the
two variations which transcribers
have substituted for the correct read-
ing ¢jAov emphasizes the former idea
and xézoy the latter. The true read-
ing is more expressive than either.
The word mévos however is very
rare in the New Testament (occur-
ring only Rev. xvi. 10, 11, xxi. 4,
besides this passage), and was there-
fore liable to be changed.

kal tov «7r.A.] The neighbouring
cities are taken in their geographical

IV. 14]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 241

qn a) , 4 can /
vuov kai twv év Aaodicig Kat tav év ‘lepamode.

5 ~~ a > \ / 4
“domacerat Umas Aovkas 0 laTpos 0 ayamnTos, Kal

Anpas.

order, commencing from Colossz; see
above, p. 2. Epaphras, though a Co-
lossian, may have been the evangelist
of the two larger cities also.

Aaodixia] This form has not the same
overwhelming preponderance of au-
thority in its favour here and in vv.
15, 16, as in ii. 1, but is probably cor-
rect in all these places. It is quite
possible however, that the same per-
son would write Aaod:c:a and Aaod:xeva
indifferently. Even the form Aao-
dixna is found in Mionnet, Suppl. vu.
p. 581. Another variation is the con-
traction of Aaod- into Aaé-; e.g. Aa-
dixnvos, Which occurs frequently in the
edict of Diocletian.

14. Aovsas] St Luke had travelled
with St Paul on his last journey to
Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 1 sq.). He
had also accompanied him two
years later from Jerusalem to Rome
(Acts xxvii. 2 sq.) And now again,
probably after another interval of two
years (see Philippians p. 31 sq.), we
find him in the Apostle’s company.
It is not probable that he remained
with St Paul in the meanwhile (Pii/-
tpptans, p. 35), and this will account
for his name not occurring in the
Kpistle to the Philippians. He was
at the Apostle’s side again in his
second captivity (2 Tim. iv. 11).

Lucas is doubtless a contraction
of Lucanus. Several Old Latin mss
write out the name Zucanus in the
superscription and subscription to the
Gospel, just as elsewhere Apollos is
written in full Apollonius. On the
frequent occurrence of this name Lu-
canus in inscriptions see LHphem.
Epigr. 1. p. 28 (1874). The shortened
form Lucas however seems to be
rare. He is here distinguished from
oi dvres é€x meptrouns (ver. 11). This
alone is fatal to his identification
(mentioned as a tradition by Origen

COL.

ad loc.) with the Lucius, St Paul’s
‘kinsman’ (i.e. a Jew; see Philip-
pians pp. 17, 171, 173), who sends
a salutation from Corinth to Rome
(Rom. xvi. 21). Itis equally fatal to
the somewhat later tradition that he
was one of the seventy (Dial. c. Mare.
§ 1 in Orig. Op. 1. p. 806, ed. De la
Rue’; Epiphan. Haer. li. 11). The iden-
tification with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts
xiii. 13) is possible but not probable.
Though the example of Patrobius for
Patrobas (Rom. xvi. 14) showsthatsuch
a contraction is not out of the ques-
tion, yet probability and testimony
alike point to Lucanus, as the longer
form of the Evangelist’s name.

6 iarpés] Indications of medical
knowledge have been traced both in
the third Gospel and in the Acts ; see
on this point Smith’s Voyage and
Shipwreck of St Paul p.6 sq. (ed. 2).
It has been observed also, that St
Luke’s first appearance in company
with St Paul (Acts xvi. 10) nearly syn-
chronizes with an attack of the Apo-
stle’s constitutional malady (Gal. iv.
13, 14); so that he may have joined
him partly in a professional capacity.
This conjecture is perhaps borne out
by the personal feeling which breathes
in the following o dyamnros. But
whatever may be thought of these
points, there is no ground for ques-
tioning the ancient belief (Iren. iii. 14..
I sq.) that the physician is also the
Evangelist. St Paul’s motive in spe-
cifying him as the Physician may not
have been to distinguish him from any
other bearing the same name, but to
emphasize his own obligations to his
medical knowledge. The name in this
form does not appear to have been
common. The tradition that St Luke
was a painter is quite late (Niceph.
Call. ii. 43). It is worthy of notice
that the two Evangelists are men-

10

242 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[IV. 15, 16

, A , A
*’Acracacbe tous év Aaoducia adeXpouvs Kai Nup-
w~ \ \ sy ~ > ec
pav Kat THY KaT’ oikov avTwY éxkAnoiav. Kal bray

tioned together in this context, as also
in Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11.

6 ayarnros| ‘the beloved one, not to
be closely connected with o iarpos, for
6 ayamnros is complete in itself ; comp.
Philem. 1, Rom. xvi. 12 (comp. vv. 5,
8, 9), 3 Joh.1. For the form compare
the expression in the Gospels, Matt.
iii. 17, etc. o vids pov, o ayamnros K.T.A. 5
where a comparison of Is. xlii. 1, as
quoted in Matt. xii. 18, seems to show
that o dyamnros «.r.d. forms a distinct
clause from 6 vids pov.

Anpas] On the probability that this
person was a Thessalonian (2 Tim. iv.
10) and that his name was Demetrius,
see the introduction to the Epistles to
the Thessalonians. He appears «in
close connexion with St Lukein Philem.
24, a8 here. In 2 Tim. iv. 10 their
conduct is placed in direct contrast,
Anpas pe eyxaréQXurrev...AovKcas éotiy po-
vos per eyvov. There is perhaps a fore-
shadowing of this contrast in the lan-
guage here. While Luke is described
with special tenderness as 6 larpds, 6
dyarnros, Demas alone is dismissed
with a bare mention and without any
epithet of commendation.

15—17. ‘Greet from me the bre-
thren who are in Laodicea, especially
Nymphas, and the church which as-
sembles in their house. And when
this letter has been read among you,
take care that it is read also in the
Church of the Laodiceans, and be sure
that ye also read the letter which I
have sent to Laodicea, and which ye
will get from them. Moreover give
this message from me to Archippus;
Take heed to the ministry which thou
hast received from me in Christ, and
discharge it fully and faithfully’

15. Nuyday] As the context shows,
an inhabitant of Laodicea. The name
in full would probably be Nymphodo-
rus, as Artemas (Tit. iii. 12) for Arte-
midorus, Zenas (Tit. iii. 13) for Zeno-

dorus, Theudas (Acts y. 16) for The-
odorus, Olympas (Rom. xvi. 15) for
Olympiodorus, and probably Hermas
(Rom. xvi. 14) for Hermodorus (see
Philippians, p. 174). Other names in
as occurring in the New Testament
and representing different termina-
tions are Amplias (Ampliatus, a 2. /.),
Antipas (Antipater), Demas (Deme-
trius ?), Epaphras (Epaphroditus), Lu-
cas (Lucanus), Parmenas (Parme-
nides), Patrobas (Patrobius), Silas
(Sylvanus), Stephanas (Stephanepho-
rus), and perhaps Junias (Junianus,
Rom. xvi. 7). For a collection of
names with this contraction, found in
different places, see Chandler Gree/
Accentuation § 34; comp. Lobeck Pa-
thol. p. 505 sq. Some remarkable
instances are found in the inscrip-
tions; €.g.’AckAds, Anuoobas, Aropas,
‘Eppoyas, Nixopas, "Ovnoas, Tpodas,
etc.; see esp. Boeckh C. I. 111. pp. 1072,
1097. The name Nymphodorus is
found not unfrequently ; e.g. Herod.
vii. 137, Thue. ii. 29, Athen. i. p. 19 F,
vi. p. 265 0, Mionnet Suppl. vi. p. 88,
Boeckh C.Z. no. 158, ete. The con-
tracted form Nuudas however is very
rare, though it occurs in an Athenian
inscription, Boeckh C. I. 269 Nuvdis,
and apparently also in a Spartan,
ib. 1240 Evrvyos Nuvpa. In Murat.
MDXXXvV. 6, is an inscription to one Vu.
Aquilius Nymphas,a freedman, where
the dative is Nymphadi. Other
names from which Nymphas might
be contracted are Nymphius, Nymphi-
cus, Nymphidius, Nymphodotus, the
first and last being the most common.

Those, who read adrjs in the fol-
lowing clause, take it as a woman’s
name (Niyuday, not Nupdayv); and the
name Nymphe, Nympha, Nympa, etc.,
occurs from time to time in Latin
inscriptions; e.g. C. ZL Z£. 11. 1099,
1783, 3763, II. 525, Vv. 607, ete. Mura-
tor. CMXXIV. I, MCLIX. 8, MCCXCV. 9,

IV. 16]

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS,

243

9 an) > Ca e 9 7 / e/ =
dvayvuc by Tap ULV 1 ETWLOTOAN, WOLNTATE LWA Kal
é

MDxcI. 3. But a Doric form of the
Greek name here seems in the highest
degree improbable.

tiv Kat oikov x.r.A.] The same ex-
pression is used of Prisca and Aquila
both at Rome (Rom. xvi. 5) and at
Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19), and also of
Philemon, whether at Colossze or at
Laodicea is somewhat uncertain (Phi-
lem. 2); comp. Acts xii. 12 rj olkiay Ths
Maplas..-o0 noav ixavot cvynOpoiopevor
kal mpocevyopevor, and see Philippi-
ans p. 56. Perhaps similar gather-
ings may be implied by the expres-
sions in Rom. xvi. 14, 15 rovs ovv av-

a lal , °
Tois adeAgovs, To's adv avrois mayras

dyiovs (Probst Kirchliche Disciplin
p. 182, 1873). See also Act. Mart.
Justin. § 3 (11. p. 262 ed. Otto), Clem.
Recogn. x. 71 ‘Theophilus... domus
-suae ingentem basilicam ecclesiae no-
mine consecraret’ (where the word
‘basilica’ was probably introduced
by the translator Ruffinus). Of the
same kind must have been the ‘ colle-
gium quod est in domo Sergiae Pau-
linae’ (de Rossi Roma Sotterranea t.
p. 209); for the Christians were first
recognised by the Roman Government
as ‘ collegia’ or burial clubs, and pro-
tected by this recognition doubtless
held their meetings for religious wor-
ship. There is no clear example of a
separate building set apart for Chris-
tian worship within the limits of the
Roman empire before the third cen-
tury, though apartments in private
houses might be specially devoted to
this purpose. This, I think, appears
as a negative result from the passages
collected in Bingham viii. 1. 13 and
Probst p. 181 sq. with a different view.
Hence the places of Christian assem-
bly were not commonly called vaoi till
quite late (Ignat. Magn. 7 is not
really an exception), but ofxo: Qcod,
oikot €xkAnotar, okor evaTHpLot, and the
like (Euseb. H. £. vii. 30, viii. 13,
ix. 9, etc.).

avraév| The difficulty of this read-

ing has led to the two corrections, av-
rod and auras, of which the former
appears in the received text, and the
latter is supported by one or two very
ancient authorities. Of these alter-
native readings however, avrov is con-
demned by its simplicity, and avris
has arisen from the form Nuydar,
which prima facie would look like a
woman’s name, and yet hardly can be

80. We should require to know more

of the circumstances to feel any con-
fidence in explaining avrav. A sim-
ple explanation is that airdév denotes
‘ Nymphas and his friends,’ by a trans-
ition which is common in classical
writers ; e.g. Xen. Anab. iii. 3. 7 mpoo-
jee pev (MiOpidarns)...mpos Tovs “EXAn-
vas’ eet © éyyds éyévovro x.t.d., iv.
5. 33 émel & ndAOov mpds Xeupiaodor,
KatehapBavoy Kal é€xeivovs oKnvodr-
ras: see also Kiihner Gramm. § 371
(ir. p. 77), Bernhardy Syntax p. 288.
Or perhaps rods év Aaodixia adeAhovs
may refer not to the whole body of the
Laodicean Church, but to a family of
Colossian Christians established in
Laodicea. Under any circumstances
this éxxAncia is only a section of 7
Aaodikéwv éxk\noia mentioned in ver.
16, On the authorities for the vari-
ous readings see the detached note.

16. 7 émiorodn] ‘the letter, which
has just been concluded, for these
salutations have the character of a
postscript; comp. Rom. xvi. 22 Tép-
Tlos 6 ypaWas THY éemioroAny, 2 Thess.
iii. 14 dia ris emvoroAns, Mart. Polyc.
20 tiv emiororny Siareuacbe. Such
examples however do not countenance
the explanation which refers ¢ypaya
vw ev tH émicroAn in I Cor. v. g to
the First Epistle itself, occurring (as
it does) in the middle of the letter
(comp. 2 Cor. vil. 8).

moimoare tval ‘cause that’; so John
xi. 37, Apoc. xiii. 15. In such cases
the iva is passing away from its earlier
sense of design to its later sense
of result, A corresponding classical

16—2

244

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[IV. 17

év Tij Aaodixéwy éxkAnoia dvayvocbn, Kal Thy &K

Aaodixlas Wa Kat UpPels AvAYVOTE.

7Kal elaate "Ap-

, \ ral
ximm@w, Bere tH dtaxoviay ny mapéhaBes ev Kupio,

74 ? \ a
iva avTyny mAnpots.

expression is molly ws OF Gras, eg.
Xen. Cyr. vi. 3. 18.

A similar charge is given in 1 Thess.
v.27. The precaution here is proba-
bly suggested by the distastefulness
of the Apostle’s warnings, which might
lead to the suppression of the letter.

tiv éx Aaodixias] i.e. ‘ the letter left
at Laodicea, which you will procure
thence.” For this abridged expres-
sion compare Luke xi. 13 0 marjp o
€& ovpavod Sdcet mvedpa aytov, Xvi. 26
(v. L) pydé of exetOev mpos pas
diamepSowv, Susann. 26 os d€ jKovoay
Thy Kpavyny ev TH Tapadelow of EK TIS
oikias, eicernonoay x.T.A. For instances
of this proleptic use of the preposi-
tion in classical writers, where it is ex-
tremely common, see Kithner Gir. §448
(1. p. 474), Jelf Gr. § 647, Matthize
Gr. § 596: e.g. Plat. Apdl. 32 B tovs
OUK dvedopevous TOUS €K THs vaupaxias,
Xen. Cyr. vii. 2. 5 dpmacdpevor ta €k
rév oixtav, Isocr. Paneg. § 187 rhv
evdatpoviay tiv ex THs "Acias eis THY
Evpomnv Staxopicaper. There are
good reasons for the belief that St
Paul here alludes to the so-called
Epistle to the Ephesians, which was
in fact a circular letter addressed to
the principal churches of proconsular
Asia (see above, p. 37, and the intro-
duction to the Hpistle to the Hphe-
sians). Tychicus was obliged to pass
through Laodicea on his way to Co-
lossze, and would leave a copy there,
before the Colossian letter was deli-
vered. For other opinions respecting
this ‘letter from lLaodicea’ see the
detached note.

iva kal vpeis K.7.A.] ‘see that ye also
read. At first sight it might seem as
though this iva also were governed by
momoare, like the former; but, inas-
much as rroiunvare Would be somewhat

awkward in this connexion, itis perhaps
better to treat the second clause as
independent and elliptical, (@Aéere)
wa xwT.A. This is suggested also by
the position of tiv é« Aaodikias be-
fore va; comp. Gal. ii. 10 povoy rév
TToYGY iva pynpovevopey (with the
note). Ellipses before iva are fre-
quent; e.g. John ix. 3, 2 Cor. vill. 13,
2 Thess. iii. 9, 1 Joh. ii. 19.

17. Kat etxare] Why does not the
Apostle address himself directly to
Archippus? It might be answered that

she probably thought the warning

would come with greater emphasis,
when delivered by the voice of the
Church. Or the simpler explanation
perhaps is, that Archippus was not
resident at Colossze but at Laodicea:
see the introduction to the Epistle
to Philemon. On this warning itself
see above, p. 42.

Bhére] ‘Look to, as 2 Joh. 8 Brerere
€avtovs tva py kt.A. More commonly
it has the accusative of the thing to
be avoided; see Phil. iii. 2 (with the
note).

tiv Staxoviay] From the stress which
is laid upon it, the d:axovia here would
seem to refer, as in the case of Timo-
thy cited below, to some higher func-
tion than the diaconate properly so
called. In Acts xii. 25 the same
phrase, sAnpoty riy Staxoviay, is used
of a temporary ministration, the col-
lection and conveyance of the alms for
the poor of Jerusalem (Acts xi. 29);
but the solemnity of the warning here
points to a continuous office, rather
than an immediate service.

mapéAafes| i.e. probably map’ €pov.
The word suggests, though it does not
necessarily imply, a mediate rather
than a direct reception: see the note
Gal. i, 12. Archippus received the

IY. 18]

*°Q domacpos Ti Eun yep Mavdov.
‘H yapis uel” Yuwr.

frou TMV OEeTUwY.

charge immediately from St Paul,
though ultimately from Christ. ‘Non
enim sequitur,’ writes Bengel, ‘a
Domino (1 Cor. xi. 23), sed in Domi-
no.’

mAnpots| ‘fulfil, ie. ‘discharge
fully’ ; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 5 rqv diaxo-
viav cov mAnpodhopyoor.

18. ‘I add this salutation with my

own hand, signing it with my name -

Paul. Be mindful of my bonds.
God’s grace be with you.’

‘O donacpos x.7.A.] The letter was
evidently written by an amanuensis
(comp. Rom. xvi. 22). The final salu-
tation alone, with the accompanying
sentence pynuovevere x.r.A., Was in the
Apostle’s own handwriting. This
seems to have been the Apostle’s
general practice, even where he does
not call attention to his own signature.
In 2 Thess. iii. 17 sq., 1 Cor. xvi. 21,
as here, he directs his readers’ notice
to the fact, but in other epistles he
is silent. In some cases however he
writes much more than the final sen-
tence. Thus the whole letter to
Philemon is apparently in his own
handwriting (see ver. 19), and in the
Epistle to the Galatians he writes a
long paragraph at the close (see the
note on vi. 11).

™ €py xeupt HavAov] The same
phrase occurs in 2 Thess. iii. 17,1 Cor.
xv 21. For the construction comp.
e.g. Philo Leg.ad Gai. 8 (. p. 554)
euov é€aott Tod Maxpwvos e¢pyov Vaios,
eué see Kiihner § 406 (11. p. 242), Jelf

407.

trav Seouov| His bonds establish
an additional claim to hearing.. He
who is suffering for Christ has a right
to speak on behalf of Christ. The

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

245

, id
Mynyovevete

appeal is similar in Ephes. iii. 1 rovrov
xapww eyed Ilatdos 6 Séopios rot X.°L,
which is resumed again (after a long
digression) in iv. I mapaxad@ ody tyas
€yd 6 Séopstos ev Kupia déiws mept-
marjoa K.T.A. (comp. Vi. 20 vmép ov
mpecBevo év advcer). So too Philem.
Q Tootros ay os Tladdos ... déopios
Xpicrod "Incov. These passages seem
to show that the appeal here is not for
himself, but for his teaching—not for
sympathy with his sufferings but for ©
obedience to the Gospel. His bonds
were not his own; they were ra Seopa
Tov evayyehiov (Philem. 13), In Heb.
x. 34 the right reading is not rois dec~
pots pov, but rots Seopiors cvvera-
Onoare (comp. xiii. 3). Somewhat simi-
lar is the appeal to his oriypara in
Gal. vi. 17, ‘Henceforth let no man
trouble me.’ See the notes on Philem.
10, 13.

‘H xapts x.7.d.] This very short form
of the final benediction appears only
here andin 1 Tim. vi. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 22.
In Tit. iii. 15 mdvrey is inserted, and
so in Heb. xiii. 25. In HEphes. vi. 24
the form so far agrees with the ex-
amples quoted, that 7 yapis is used
absolutely, though the end is length-
ened out. In all the earlier epistles 7
xapts is defined by the addition of row
Kupiov [judy }’Incot[Xpicrod |; 1 Thess.
v. 28, 2 Thess. iii. 18, 1 Cor. xvi. 23,
2 Cor. xiii. 13, Gal. vi. 18, Rom. xvi.
20, [24], Phil. iv. 23. Thus the abso-
lute 7) yapis in the final benediction
may be taken as a chronological note, ©
A similar phenomenon has been al-
ready observed (rj é€xxAnoia, tats éx-
kAynoias) in the opening addresses:
see the note oni. 2.

246

Harmon-
istic read-
ings.

Prepon-
derant
evidence
(1) for the
correct
reading;

(2) against
the correct
reading.

Examples,
lil. 6,
words in-
serted.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

On some Various Readings in the Epistle’.

In one respect the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians hold a unique
position among the Epistles of St Paul, as regards textual criticism. They
alone have been exposed, or exposed in any considerable degree, to those
harmonizing tendencies in transcribers, which have had so great an influence
on the text of the Synoptic Gospels.

In such cases there is sometimes no difficulty in ascertaining the correct
reading. The harmonistic change is condemned by the majority of the
oldest and best authorities; or there is at least a nearly even balance of
external testimony, and the suspicious character of the reading is quite
sufficient to turn the scale. Thus we cannot hesitate for a moment about
such readings as i. 14 dud rod aiparos avrov (from Ephes. i. 7), or iii. 16 yad-
pois Kat Vuvors Kal @dais mvevparekats, and To Kupio (for r@ Ged) in the
same verse (both from Ephes. v. 19).

In other instances again there can hardly be any doubt about the text,
even though the vast preponderance of authority is in favour of the harmo-
nistic reading; and these are especially valuable because they enable us
to test the worth of our authorities. Such examples are :

iii. 6. The omission of the words émi rods viods ris dwebelas (taken
from Ephes. v. 6). Apparently the only extant ms in favour of the omission
is B. In D however they are written (though by the first hand) in smaller
letters and extend beyond the line (in both Greek and Latin), whence
we may infer that they were not found in a copy which was before the tran-
scriber. They are wanting also in the Thebaic Version and in one form of the
Ethiopic (Polyglott), They were also absent from copies used by Cle-
ment of Alexandria (Paed. iil, 11, p. 295, where however they are inserted
in the printed texts; Strom. ili. 5, p. 531), by Cyprian (Zpist. lv. 27, p. 645

1 The references to the patristic quo-
tations in the following pages have all
been verified. I have also consulted
the Egyptian and Syriac Versions in
every case, and the Armenian and
Latin in some instances, before giving
the readings. As regards the mss, I
have contented myself with the colla-
tions as given in Tregelles and Tisch-
endorf, not verifying them unless I
had reason to suspect an error.

The readings of the Memphitic Ver-
sion are very incorrectly given even by
the principal editors, such as Tregel.es
and Tischendorf; the translation of

Wilkins being commonly adopted,
though full of errors, and no attention
being paid to the various readings of
Boetticher’s text. Besides the errors
corrected in the following pages, I
have also observed these places where
the text of this version is incor-
rectly reported; ii. 7 év avrq not
omitted; ii, 13 the second vuds not
omitted; ii. 17 the singular (6), not the
plural (@); iii. 4 vue, not yor; iil.
16 T@ Veg, not T~G Kuplw; iil. 22 Tov
Kvpiov, not riv Oedv; iv. 3 doubtful
whether 8 6 or 6¢ év; and probably
there are others.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 247

ed. Hartel), by an unknown writer (de Sing. Cler. 39, in Cypr. Op. IIL. p. 215),
by the Ambrosian Hilary (ad Zoc.), and by Jerome (£pist. xiv. 5, 1. p. 32)
though now found apparently in all the Latin mss.

iii. 21. épeOi¢ere is only found in B K and in later hands of D (with its iii. 21
transcript E) among the uncial mss. All the other uncials read mapopyifere, €pedt sere.
which is taken from Ephes. vi. 4. In this case however the reading of B is
supported by the greater number of cursives, and it accordingly has a place
in the received text. The versions (so far as we can safely infer their read-
ings) go almost entirely with the majority of uncials. The true readings of Syriac
the Syriac versions are just the reverse of those assigned to them even by Version
the chief critical editors, Tregelles and Tischendorf. Thus in the Peshito, 4)

sented.
the word used is the Aphel of WA the same mood of the same verb being

employed to translate mapopyifewv, not only in Rom. x. 19, but even in
the parallel passage Ephes. vi. 4. The word in the text of the Harclean

is the same a OX Td, but in the margin the alternative AQF
is given. White interprets this as saying that the text is épeOi¢ere and the
margin mapopyi¢ere, and he is followed by Tregelles and Tischendorf. But
in this version, as in the Peshito, the former word translates rapopyitew in
Rom. x. 19, Ephes. vi. 4; while in the Peshito the latter word is adopted
to render éepeOifew in 2 Cor. ix. 2 (the only other passage in the N. T.
where épe@ife occurs). In the Harclean of 2 Cor. ix, 2 a different word

from either, dissdiss, is used. It seems tolerably clear therefore that
mapopyifere was read in the text of both Peshito and Harclean here, while
épeOifere was given in the margin of the latter. The Latin versions seem Qatin
also to have read mapopyifere ; for the Old Latin has ad iram (or in tram Versions.
_ or ad iracundiam) provocare, and the Vulgate ad indignationem provo-

care here, while both have ad iracundiam provocare in Hphes. vi. 4.

The Memphitic too has the same rendering Y2swmt in both passages. Of

the earlier Greek fathers Clement, Strom. iv. 8 (p. 593), reads épeOi¢ere:

and it is found in Chrysostom and some later writers.

These examples show how singularly free B is from this passion for Great
harmonizing, and may even embolden us to place reliance on its authority value of B,
in extreme cases.

For instance, the parallel passages Ephes. v. 19 and Ool. iii. 16 stand Parallel

thus in the received text : passages.
EPHESIANS. CoLOssIANs. Col. iii. 16,
Aadovyres Eavtois Wahpots Kat vp-.| SiddoKxovres Kal vovberosvres éav- Eph. v. 19.

vos kal @dais mvevparixais Gdovres | rods Waduois Kal Tyvors kal dais
kai Waddovres ev ti Kapdia dua | mvevparixais ev xdpire GSovres ev TH
al , ec Cal n
T@ Kupig. kapoig vpav TO Kupie.
And A carries the harmonizing tendency still further by inserting év
, 4 *
xapirt before gdovres in Ephes, from the parallel passage.

In B they are read as follows :

im € Cal 3 a
Aadovvres Eavrois ev Warwois kat Svdaokovres Kal vovOerovvres éav-
9 ‘ > - ” ~ an
Duvots kat @dais ddovres Kal Wad-| rods Wadrpois duvos @dais mveupa-
a , ES fod re a -
Aovres Ti} kapdia tudv TG Kupia. Tikais év Th xapitt adovtes ev Tals

, c lod od “
' Kapdlas vuor TO eg.

248

Altera-
tions for

. the sake of ,
harmon-
izing.

év Wahpors.

TVEV{LATL=
Kats.

TH Kkapolg.

Excellence
of B else-
where,

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Here are seven divergences from the received text. ( T) The insertion of év
before Yahois in Ephes.; (2) The omission of kai, cai, attaching Wadpois,
vpvors, dais in Col. ; (3) The omission of mvevpariKais in Ephes. ; : (4) The
insertion of Tn before yapite'in Col.; (5) The omission of év before 77 Kap-
dia in Ephes.; (6) The substitution of rats xapdSias for rf xapdia in Col.:
(7) The substitution of 76 Oecd for 7S Kupig in Col.

Of these seven divergences the fourth alone does not affect the question:
of the remaining six, the readings of B in (2), (6), (7) are supported by the
great preponderance of the best authorities, and are unquestionably right.
THAD) 3); (5) however the case stands thus:

(1) ev Wadpois B, P, with the cursives 17, 67**, 73, 116, 118, and the
Latin, d, e, vulg. ., with the Latin commentators Nicennde Hilary,
and a erome. Of these however it is clear that the Latin autho-
rities can have little weight in such a case, as the preposition
might have been introduced by the translator. All the other
Greek mss with several Greek fathers omit év.

(3) mvevparixais omitted in B, d,e. Of the Ambrosian Hilary Tischen-
dorf says ‘fluct. lectio’; but his comment ‘In quo enim est
spiritus, semper spiritualia meditatur’ seems certainly to recog-
nise the word. It appears to be found in every other authority.

(5) rq xapdia 8* B with Origen in Cramer’s Catena, p. 201.

év r7 xapsia K L, and the vast majority of: later mss, the Armenian
and Ethiopic Versions, Euthalius (Tischendorf’s ms), Theodoret,
and others. The Harclean Syriac (text) is quoted by Tischen-
dorf and Tregelles in favour of év 77 xapdia, but it is im-
possible to say whether the translator had or had not the pre-
position.

év rais Kapdias 3A D F GP, 47, 8" ; the Old Latin, Vulgate, Mem-
phitic, Peshito Syriac, and Gothic Versions, together with the
margin of the Harclean Syriac ; the fathers Basil (1. p. 464),
Victorinus (probably), Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Ambrosian
Hilary, Jerome, and others. Chrysostom (as read in the existing
texts) wavers between év r7 xapdiga and év rats xapdias. This
form of the reading is an attempt to bring Ephes. into harmony
with Col, just as (6) is an attempt to bring Col. into harmony

_ with Ephes.

It will be seen how slenderly B is supported; and yet we can hardly
resist the impression that it has the right reading in all three cases. In the
omission of rvevyarixats more especially, where the support is weakest, this
impression must, I think, be very strong.

This highly favourable estimate of B is our starting-point; and on the
whole it will be enhanced as we proceed. Thus for instance in i. 22 andii. 2
we shall find this Ms alone (with one important Latin father) retaining the
correct text; in the latter case amidst a great complication of various read-
ings. And when again, as in iv. 8, we find B for once on the side of a reading
which might otherwise be suspected as a harmonistic change, this support
alone will weigh heavily in its favour, Other cases in which B (with more
or less support) preserves the correct reading against the mass of authorities
are li. 2 wav mobos, li. 7 TH Tice, ii. 13 Tois mapamrodpaow (omitting ey,

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 249

Vv. 12 orad#re, together with several instances. which will appear in the
course of the following investigation. On the other hand its value must

not be overestimated. Thus in iv. 3 rd pvornpioy rov Xpicrov Se 6 kal
d5éSeuat! there can be little doubt that the great majority of ancient autho- False
rities correctly read 6v 6, though B F G have dv év: but the variation is ne
easily explained. A single stroke, whether accidental or deliberate, alone f
would be necessary to turn the neuter into a masculine and make the
relative agree with the substantive nearest to it in position. Again in

ii. 10 8s éorw % Kehady, the reading of B which substitutes 6 for és is
plainly wrong, though supported in this instance by D F G 47*, by the Latin

text d, and by Hilary in one passage (de Trin. ix. 8, 11. p. 263), though else-
where (ib. i. 13, I. p. 10) he reads d. But here again we have only an in-
stance of a very common interchange. Whether for grammatical reasons or
from diplomatic confusion or from some other cause, five other instances of

this interchange occur in this short epistle alone; i. 15 6 for ds F G; i. 186

for és F G; i. 24 ds for 6 C D* etc; i.27 és ford 8 C D K Lete,; iii. 14 és
foré 8* D. Such readings again as the omission of kat airovpevor i. 9 by

B K, or of 8? avrod in i. 20 by B D* F G ete, or of 7 émioroAy in iv. 16 by

B alone, need not be considered, since the motive for the omission is
obvious, and the authority of B will not carry as great weight as it would

in other cases. Similarly the insertion of 4 in i. 18, 7 dpx7, by B, 47, 67**,

b*, and of xai in ii. 15, cai édevyparicev, by B alone, do not appear to deserve
consideration, because in both instances these readings would suggest
themselves as obvious improvements. In other cases, as in the omission of

ts before yijs (i. 20), and of évi in év évt odpare (iii. 15), the scribe of B has
erred as any scribe might err..

| The various readings in this epistle are more perplexing than perhaps
| in any portion of St Paul’s Epistles of the same length. The following de-
| serve special consideration. :

} i. 3 TH Oe Tarp.

On this very unusual collocation I have already remarked in the notes ;. 370
(p. 133). The authorities stand as follows: deg awarpl,

(I) r& OeG marpi B C*.
(2) r@ Oe6 7G marpi D* F G Chrysostom.

One or other is also the reading of the Old Latin (d, e, g, harl.**), of the
Memphitic, the two Syriac (Peshito and Harclean), the Ethiopic, and the
Arabic (Erpenius, Bedwell, Leipzig) Versions; and of Augustine (de Unit.
ficcl. 45, 1X. p. 368) and Cassiodorus (11. p. 1351, Migne). |

(3) 6 Oe xa warpi % A C? D°K L P and apparently all the other
mss; the Vulgate and Armenian Versions; Euthalius (Tischendorf’s ms),
Theodore of Mopsuestia (transl.), Theodoret, the Ambrosian Hilary, and
others.

A comparison of these authorities seems to show pretty clearly that
7@ Ge@ warpi was the original reading. The other two were expedients

1 In this passage B (with some few expression (ii. 2, 1 Cor. iv. 1, Rev. x.
other authorities) has rof Gcod for rob + 7; comp. x Cor, ii. 1, v. 1.) for a less
| Xpicrod, thus substitutingacommoner common (Ephes. iii. 4),

250 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

for getting rid of a very unusual collocation of words. The scribes have

compared felt the same difficulty again in iii. 17 evxapiorowwres TH Oe@ marpl Sv

withiii.17, aJrov, and there again we find xai inserted before zarpi. In this latter
instance however the great preponderance of ancient authority is in
favour of the unusual form ré 6e rarpi.

and i. 12. It is worth observing also that in i. 12, where r@ warpi has the highest
support, there is sufficient authority for r@ Oe marpi to create a suspicion
that there too it may be possibly the correct reading. Thus r@ 66 marpi
is read in 8 37, while 6e@ 76 warpi stands in F G. One or other must have
been the reading of some Old Latin and Vulgate texts (f, g, m, fuld.), of the
Peshito Syriac, of the Memphitic (in some texts, for others read 76 marpi
simply), of the Arabic (Bedwell), of the Armenian (Uscan), and of Origen
(Il. p. 451, the Latin translator); while several other authorities, Greek
and Latin, read r@ Oe kal rarpi.

Unique There is no other instance of this collocation of words, 6 eds mwarnp,

colloca- in the Greek Testament, so far as I remember; and it must be regarded

= as peculiar to this epistle.

i. 4 THN AdrdTHN [HN €yeTe].

ees Here the various readings are ;
ry dy darny (1) Hv dyamny B.
ssid ala (2) iv dydmny av tyere ANC D* FG P 17, 37, 47; the Old

Latin and Vulgate, Memphitic (apparently), and Harclean
Syriac Versions; the Ambrosian Hilary, Theodore of
Mopsuestia (transl.), and others.

(3) tv ayarnv tov. D°’ K L; the Peshito Syriac (apparently)
and Armenian (apparently) Versions; Chrysostom, Theo-
doret and others.

If the question were to be decided by external authority alone, we
could not hesitate. It is important however to observe that (2) conforms
to the parallel passage Philem. 5 dxovay cov thy dyamny Kal thy miotLY HY
éxets, While (3) conforms to the other parallel passage Ephes. i. 15 kat [rn
dyannyv] thy eis mavtas Tovs ayiovs. Thus, though 4» éeyxere is so highly sup-
ported and though it helps out the sense, it is open to suspicion. Still the
omission in B may be an instance of that impatience of apparently super-
fluous words, which sometimes appears in this Ms.

i. 7 YTIEP HM@N AIAKONOC.

: Here there is a conflict between mss and Versions.

Urep udv. (1) npov A BS* D* FG, 3, 13, 33, 43, 52, 80,91, 109. This must
also have been the reading of the Ambrosian Hilary
though the editors make him write ‘pro vobis’), for he ex-
plains it ‘qui eis ministravit gratiam Christi vice apostoli.

(2) vpov ® C D> K L P, 17, 37, 47, and many others; the Vul-
gate, the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, the Memphitic,
Gothic, and Armenian Versions; Chrysostom, Theodore
of Mopsuestia (transl.), and Theodoret (in their respec-
tive texts, for with the exception of Chrysostom there
is nothing decisive in their comments), with others.

te

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 251

The Old Latin is doubtful; d, e having vobis and g nobis.

‘a Though the common confusion between these two words even in the

best mss is a caution against speaking with absolute certainty, yet such

P a combination of the highest authorities as we have here for nudv does
not leave much room for doubt: and considerations of internal criticism

I ‘point in the same direction. See the note on the passage.

i, 12 T@ IKAN@CANTI.

Against this, which is the reading of all the other ancient authorities, ;, 12
we have ixavioavrt.
(2) 1@ xadécavre D* F G, 17, 80, with the Latin authorities d, e,
f, g, m, and the Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic Ver-
sions. It is so read also by the Ambrosian Hilary, by
Didymus de Trin. iii. 4 (p. 346), and by Vigilius Thap-
sensis c. Varim.i. 50 (p. 409).
(3) 1@ Kadécavre Kal ixavdcayrt, found in B alone.
Here the confusion between TwINKAN@CANTI and TOIKAAECANTI would
be easy, more especially at a period prior to the earliest existing Mss,
when the iota adscript was still written; while at the same time xadécarte
would suggest itself to scribes as the obvious word in such a connexion. It
| isa Western reading.
: The text of B obviously presents a combination of both readings.

i. 14 €N G EYOMEN.

For ¢youev B, the Memphitic Version, and the Arabic (Bedwell, Leipzig), ; i. 14
read é Erxoper. This is possibly the correct reading. In the parallel pas- éxouev or
sage, Ephes. i. 7, several authorities (8* D*, the Memphitic and Ethiopic &*x°H«v?
Versions, and the translator of Irenzeus vy. 14. 3) similarly read écyouev for
€xopev. Tt may be conjectured that écyouey in these authorities was a
harmonistic change in Ephes. i. 7, to conform to the text which they or
their predecessors had in Col.i.14. Tischendorf on Ephes. 1. c. says ‘aut
utroque loco exopev aut ecxouey Paulum scripsisse puto’; but if any infer-

ence can be drawn from the phenomena of the mss, they point rather to a
: different tense in the two passages.

i, 22 ATIOKATHAAASHTE.

_ This reading is perhaps the highest testimony of all to the great value j, 22

| of B. amroKxaTnX«

j The variations are; a Me

| (1) dmoxarn\ddynre B. This also seems to be the reading of
Hilary of Poitiers In wci Psalm. 9 (I. p. 270), who trans-
fers the Apostle’s language into the first person, ‘cum
aliquando essemus alienati et inimici sensus ejus in factis

(| malis, nunc autem reconciliati sumus corpore carnis ejus.’

: (2) dmoxarndAdkyra 17.
(3) dmoxarad\\ayévtes D* F G, and the Latin authorities d, e, g,

aS

ee

252

li. 2
Tov Oeod
Xpiorod.

Original
reading,

Varia-
tions;

(a) by in-
terpreta-
tion, ,,

(5) by.
omission,

the reading of D by a second hand, of P, 37, 67**, 71, 80, 116.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

m, the Gothic Version, the translator of Irenzeus (v. 14. 3),
and others. }
(4) dzoxarnAda€ey, all the other authorities.

Of these (2) is obviously a corruption of (1) from similarity of sound; |
and (3) is an emendation, though a careless emendation, of (1) for the sake |
of the grammar. It should have been dmoxaraddayévras. The reading ©
therefore must lie between dmoxatrn\Aaynre and dmoxatn\Aagev. This latter |
however is probably a grammatical correction to straighten the syntax. —
In the Memphitic a single letter av for aq would make the difference ~
between dzoxarn\Aaynre and droxaryj\Aagev; but no variation from the ©
latter is recorded. .

ii. 2 TOY O€0Y, yXpICTOY. |

The various readings here are very numerous and at first sight per- _
plexing; but the result of an investigation into their several claims is far —
from unsatisfactory. The reading which explains all the rest may safely —
be adopted as the original.

(1) Toy O8E0y ypicToy. .

This is the reading of B and of Hilary of Poitiers, de Trin. ix. 62
(I. p. 306), who quotes the passage sacramenti Det Christi in quo etc., and —
wrongly explains it ‘Deus Christus sacramentum est.’ ¥

All the other variations are derived from this, either by explanation or —
by omission or by amplification.

By explanation we get ;

(2) TOY ®E0Y O ECTIN yDICTOC, 3
the reading of D, with the Latin authorities d, e, which have Dei quod
est Christus. So it is quoted by Vigilius Thapsensis c. Varim. i. 20 |
(p. 380), and in a slightly longer form by Augustine de Trin. xiii. 24 (vu.
p. 944) mysterium Dei quod est Christus Jesus. a

(3) TOY 6BE0Y EN YPICTA.

So it is twice quoted by Clement of Alexandria Strom. v. 10 (p. 683), i.
12 (p. 694); or

TOY 8E€0Y TOY EN YPICTO,
the reading of 17. «

So the Ambrosian Hilary (both text and re has Dei in 1”
Christo. And the Armenian has the same lengthened out, Dei in Christo
Jesu (Zohrab) or Det patris in Christo Jesu (Uscan). |

(4) Domini quod de Chrisio i
is the Ethiopic rendering. Whether this represents another various read- 4
ing in the Greek or whether the paraphrase is the translator’s own, itis |
impossible to say. ii

The two following variations strive to overcome the difficulty by —
omission ; z

(5) Toy Geoy,

(6) Toy ypicToy,
the reading of Euthalius in Tischendorf’s ms; but Tischendorf adds ~
the caution ‘sed non satis apparet.’ a

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 253

| _ All the remaining readings are attempts to remedy the text by ampli- (c) by
fication. They fall into two classes; those which insert zarpds so as to senior
t make Xpirrod dependent on it, (7), (8), and those which separate @cod from r
| Xpioroi by the interposition of a Kai, (9), (10), (11).
(7) TOY GE0Y TaTpoc ypicToy, (i) by in-
the reading of ® (by the first hand). Tischendorf also adds b’* and ae
# o**; but I read Scrivener’s collations differently (Cod. Aug. p. 506): or govern .
f TOY @e0Y TATpoc Toy ypicToy, Apwrov ;
the reading of A O, 4.

One or other is the reading of the Thebaic Version (given by Gries-
bach) and of the Arabie (Leipz.).

A lengthened form of the same, Det patris Christi Jesu, appears in the
} oldest mss of the Vulgate, am. fuld.f: and the same is also the reading
of the Memphitic (Boetticher).

(8) Toy OE0Y Kal TrATPpOC TOY yPICcTOY.

So S (the third hand) b*’, o*, and a correcter in the Harclean
Syriac.

(9) Toy G8E0yY Kal ypicToY, . (ii) by
the simplest form of the other class of emendations by amplification. separating
It is found in Cyril. Thes. p. 287. > jenn

(10) TOY @E0Y TATpOC Kal TOY ypPIcToy. i @ con-

So 47, 73, the Peshito Syriac (ed. princeps and Schaaf). And so it junction,
stands in the commentators Chrysostom (but with various readings) and
Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spicil. Solesm. 1. p. 131 Det patris et Christi,
but in Rab. Maur. Op, vi. p. 521 Det patris Christi Jesu).

Pelagius has Dei patris et Christi Jesu, and so the Memphitic (Wilkins).

(11) TOY O€0Y KA! TrATPpOC Kal TOY yPICTOY. The com-

This, which may be regarded as the latest development, is the reading ™on text
of the received text. It is found in D (third hand) KL, and in the great Gevains
majority of cursives; in the text of the Harclean Syriac, and | in Theodoret ment.
and others. ,

Besides these readings some copies of the Vulgate exhibit other varia-
tions; e.g. demid. Det patris et domini nostri Christi Jesu, tolet. Det
) Christi Jesu patris et Domini.

) It is not necessary to add any remarks. The justification of rod Ccot

_ Xptorod as the original reading will have appeared in the variations to
which it has given rise. The passage is altogether an instructive lesson in
textual criticism.

ii, 16 €N Bpacel Kai én Trdcel.

In this reading B stands alone among the Mss; but it is supported by ii, 16
the Peshito Syriac and Memphitic Versions, by Tertullian (adv. Mare. vy. wat or 7?
19), and by Origen (in Joann. x. § 11, 1v. p. 174). The testimony of Ter-
tullian however is invalidated by the fact that he uses e¢ as the connecting
particle throughout the passage; and the Peshito Syriac also has ‘and’ for
7 in the two last clauses, though not in the second

254

li. 18, the
omission
of the

negative.

The form
ébpaker.

ii,-22,_18
kai to be
omitted?

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

The rest have ¢v Bpdoe 7 €v rooe. This may be explained as a very
obvious, though not very intelligent, alteration of scribes to conform to the
disjunctive particles in the context, } év pépet €oprns 7 veounvias 7 caBSaror.

In this same context it is probable that B retains the right form veo-
pyvias (supported here by F G and others) as against the Attic voupnvias.
In the same way in iii. 25 xopicera: and iy. 9 yvpicovow B (with some
others) has resisted the tendency to Attic forms.

ii, 18 A €dPAaKeN.

That this is the oldest reading which the existing texts exhibit, will
appear from the following compariscn of authorities.

(1) & édpaxev (Eopaxev) A BS* D*, 17%, 28, 67** ; the Old Latin au-
thorities d, e,m; the Memphitic, Ethiopic, and Arabic (Leipz.)
Versions; Tertull. c. Marc. v. 19 (‘ex visionibus angelicis’ ;
and apparently Marcion himself also); Origen (c. Cels. v. 8,
I. p. 583, though the negative is here inserted by De la Rue,
and in Cant. ii, 111. p. 63, in his quae videt); Lucifer (De non
conv. c. haer. p. 782 Migne); the Ambrosian Hilary (ad loc.
explaining it ‘Inflantur motum pervidentes stellarum, quas
angelos vocat’)." So too the unknown author of Quaest. ex
N. T. ii. 62 in August. Op. 11. Appx. p. 156. Jerome (Epist.
cxat ad Alg. § 10, I. p. 880) mentions both readings (with and
without the negative) as found in the Greek text: and Augus-
tine (Zpist. 149, 1. p. 514), while giving the preference to guae
non vidit, says that some Mss have quae vidit.

(2) & py édpaxev (Eopaxev) 8° C D* K L P, and the great majority of
cursives ;

(3) a ovK éwpaxey F G.

The negative is also read in g; in the Vulgate, the Gothic, both the
Syriac and the Armenian Versions ; in the translator of Origen Jn Rom. ix.
§ 42 (Iv. p. 665),in Ambrose in Psalm. caviit Exp. Xx. (I. p. 1222), and in
the coo Pelagius, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spic.
Solesm. I. p. 132 ‘quae nec sciunt’), Theodoret, and others.

From a review of these authorities we infer that the insertion of the
negative was a later correction, and that a éwpaxey (or éopaxev) represents
the prior reading. In my note I have expressed my suspicion that 4 édpa-
kev (or €opaxeyv) is itself corrupt, and that the original reading is lost.

The unusual form édpaxev is found in 8 B* C D P, and is therefore to be
preferred to édpaxer.

ii, 23 [kal] Adeidia coomatoc.

Here xai is found in all the Greek copies except B, but is omitted in
these Latin authorities, m, the translator of Origen (Jn Rom. ix. § 42, Iv.
p. 665), Hilary of Poitiers (Tract. in wiv Ps. §7, p. 73), the Ambrosian
Hilary, Ambrose (de Noe 25, p. 267), and Paulinus (Zpisé. 50, p. 292 8q.). We
have more than once found B and Hilary alone in supporting the correct
reading (i. 22, ii. 2); and this fact gives weight to their joint authority here.
The omission also seems to explain the impossible reading of d, e, which

Set als ws

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

have in religione et humilitate sensus et vexationem corporis, where for
et vexwationem we should perhaps read ad vexationem, as in the Ambrosian
Hilary. There was every temptation for a scribe to insert the xai so as to
make ddecdig range with the other datives: while on the other hand a finer
appreciation of the bearing of the passage suggests that St Paul would have
dissociated it, so as to give it a special prominence.

A similar instance occurs in iii. 12 ws ékAexrol Tod Geod, ayo Kal Wya-
mnpévot, Where B omits the cai with 17 and the Thebaic Version. In 219
kai dytot is read for dy. kai. The great gain in force leads to the suspicion
that this omission may be correct, notwithstanding the enormous prepon-
derance of authority on the other side.

iv. 8 fN@TE TA TEPi HMON.

Of the various readings of this passage I have already spoken (p. 29 8q., iv. 8
are Th
mepl Huav.

note I, p. 235).

The authorities are as follows :

(1) yoare ra rept yuav A B D*FG P, 10, 17, 33, 35, 373 44, 47, 71,
III, 116, 137; d,e,g; the Armenian and Ethiopic Versions;
Theodore of Mopsuestia?, Theodoret?, Jerome (on Ephes. vi.
21 sq., Vil. p. 682), and Euthalius (Tischendorf’s Ms). This
is also the reading of 8*, except that it has duov for juor.

(2) yo ra wept dudy 8 CD’*K L and the majority of eursives ;
the Memphitic, Gothic, Vulgate, and both Syriac Versions ;
the Ambrosian Hilary, Jerome (on Philem. 1, vu. p. 748),
Chrysostom (expressly), and others.

The internal evidence is considered in the note on the passage, and
found to accord with the vast preponderance of external authority in favour
of yore ra rept yuov. The reading of & by the first hand exhibits a
transitional stage. It would appear as though the transcriber intended it

255

to be read yr@ re ra mepi vpav. At all events this is the reading of I1I The vari-
and of Io. Damasc. Op. 1. p. 214. The variation yo ra mepi vuay is thus ous read-

easily explained. (1) yuav would be accidentally substituted for vpdy; (2) yvdre

omitted. In illustration of the tendency to conform the persons of the
two verbs yv@, rapaxadécy (see p. 235), it may be mentioned that 17 reads
yvere, mapaxadéonre, both here and in Ephes. vi. 22.

1 It is true that in the text (Spicil.
Solesm. 1. p. 123, Rab. Maur. Op. vit.
p. 539, Migne) he is credited with the
later Latin reading ut cognoscat quae
circa vos sunt, but his comment im-
plies the other; ‘Quoniam omnia
vobis nota faciet Tychicus illa quae
erga me sunt, propterea a me directus
est cum Onesimo fratre qui a vobis
venerat, ut nota vobis faciant quae
erga nos sunt [= yvere Ta mepl judy]

et oblectent vos per suum adventum
[=xai mapaxadéoy Tas Kapdlas vudr],
omnia quae hic aguntur manifesta
facientes yvobis.’ See Spicil. Solesm.
l.c.; the comment is mutilated in
Rab. Maur. Op. 1. c¢.

2 In the text; but in the commen-

tary he is made to write wa yw ydp,

gnot, TH wept juov, an impossible
reading.

ings ac-

would then be read yv@ re; (3) the awkward and superfluous re would be ye “

Nymphas
or Nym-
pha?

The Syriac
versions,

The Latin
author-
ities.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

iv. 15. KAT OIKON aYTON.

The readings here are:

(1) at’révyS AC P, 5, 9, 17, 23, 34, 39, 47, 73; together with the
Memphitic Version, the Arabic (Leipz.), and Euthalius (Tisch-
endorf’s xs). The Memphitic Version is commonly but
wrongly quoted in favour of avrod, owing to a mistranslation
of Wilkins. But both Wilkins and Boetticher give without —
any various reading MovHy, i.e. ofkov avtdv. This seems also
to be the reading of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spic. Solesm.
i. p. 133) guae in domo eorum est ecclesia ; though in Rab.
Maur. Op. vI. p. 540 his text runs guae in domo ejus est eccle-
siam, and he is made to say Nympham cum omnibus suis
qui in domo ejus sunt.

(2) avrijs B 67**, .

(3) avro6 DF G K Land the great majority of cursives; and so
the Gothic Version, Chrysostom, and Theodoret (the latter
distinctly).

The singular, whether avrod or avrijs, is the reading of the old Latin
and Vulgate, which have ejws, and ofthe Armenian. The pronoun is also sin-
gular in the Peshito and Harclean Syriac. In this language the same con-
sonants express masculine and feminine alike, the difference lying in the
pointing and vocalisation.’ And here the copies are inconsistent with them-
selves. In the Peshito (both the editio princeps and Schaaf) the proper
name is vocalised as a feminine Numphé (=Nvpdn), and yet moans
is treated as having a masculine aflix, car’ ofkoy avrod. Inthe text of the
Harclean opis is pointed thus, as a feminine avrjs; while the margin

gives the alternative reading Ar (without the point)=avrod. The name
itself is written Nympha, which according to the transliteration of this version
might stand either for a masculine (as Barnaba, Luka, in the context, for
BapvaBas, Aovxas) or for a feminine (since Demas, Epaphras, are written with
ans), The Latin ejus leaving the gender undetermined, the Latin commen-
tators were free to take either Nymphas or Nympha; and, as Nympha was a
common Latin form of Néydn, they would naturally adopt the female name.
So the commentator Hilary distinctly.

It should be added that the word is accentuated as a masculine vupday
in De L P, and as a feminine :¥uday in B°and Euthalius (Tischendorf’s ms).

lator doubtless considered the name
to be a contraction for Julianus. The

1 More probably the latter. In
Rom. xvi the terminations -a and as

for the feminine and masculine names
respectively are carefully reproduced
in the Harclean Version. In ver. 15
indeed we have Julias, but the trans-

proper Syriac termination -a seems
only to be employed for the Greek -as
in very familiar names such as Bar-
naba, Luka.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 257

On the meaning of wrAnpopa.

Tun verb Anpody has two senses. It signifies either (1) ‘To fill’, e. g. The mean-
Acts ii. 2 émAtpaoev Sdov Tov olkov; or (2) ‘To fulfil, complete, perfect, ng of the
accomplish’, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 56 iva mAnpobdow ai ypadai, Rom. xiii. 8 ch
vonov tremAnpoxev, Acts xii, 25 mAnpadcavres thy Siaxoviavy. The latter sense .
indeed is derived from the former, but practically it has become separate
from it. The word occurs altogether about a hundred times in the New
Testament, and for every one instance of the former sense there are at

least four of the latter.

In the investigations which have hitherto been made into the significa- False issue
tion of the derived substantive mAjpopa, as it occurs in the New Testa- ess
ment, an almost exclusive prominence has been given to the former mean- extaa
ing of the verb; and much confusion has arisen in consequence. The
question has been discussed whether wAyjpapa has an active or a passive
sense, whether it describes the filling substance or the filled receptacle :
and not unfrequently critics have arrived at the result that different
grammatical senses must be attached to it in different passages, even resulting
within the limits of the same epistle. Thus it has been maintained that in theolo-
the word has a passive sense ‘id quod impletur’ in Ephes. i. 23 r7 éxxAnoia er
itis €otiv TO copa avTod, TO WANPopa TOU TA TavTa ev Tal TANpOUpEVOL,
and an active sense ‘id quod implet’ in Ephes. iii. 19 iva wAnpwOijre cis may
To TApopa Tov Ocod. Indeed so long as we see in wAnpody only the sense
‘to fill’, and refuse to contemplate the sense ‘to complete’, it seems im-
possible to escape from the difficulties which meet us at every turn, other-
wise than by assigning to its derivative mAjpopa both an active and a
passive sense; but the greatest violence is thus done to the connexion of
theological ideas.

Moreover the disregard of lexical rules is not less violent}. Substan- and disre-
tives in -ya, formed from the perfect passive, appear always to have a gard of
passive sense. They may denpte an abstract notion or a concrete thing ; oii a
they may signify the action itself regarded as complete, or the product of
the action; but in any case they give the veswlt of the agency involved in Meaning
the corresponding verb. Such for example are &yyeAya ‘a message’, dupa of substan-
‘a knot’, dpydpeua ‘a silver-made vessel’, BovAevya ‘a plan’, dixaimpa ‘a chin _
righteous deed’ or ‘an ordinance’, ¢jrnza ‘an investigation’, kjpvypa ‘a
proclamation’, céAvua ‘a hindrance’, opoiepa ‘a likeness’, dpaza ‘a vision’,

1 The meaning of this word rAjpwua
is the subject of a paper De vocis a)7-
pwya vario sensu in N. IT. in Siorr’s
Opusc. Acad. I. p. 1448q., and of an ela-
borate note in Fritzsche’s Rom. 11. p.
469 sq. Storr attempts to show that
it always has an active sense ‘id quod
implet’ in the New Testament. Fritz-
sche rightly objects to assigning a
persistently active sense to a word
which has a directly passive termi-

nation: and he himself attributes to .

COL.

it two main senses, ‘id quod imple-
tur’ and ‘id quo res impletur’, the
latter being the more common. He

apparently considers that he has sur-

mounted the difficulties involved in
Storr’s view, for he speaks of this last
as a passive sense, though in fact it is
nothing more than ‘id quod implet’
expressed in other words. In Rom.
xiii. ro tAjpwpa vdpov he concedes an
active sense ‘legis completio’, h. e.
‘observatio’,

17

258

Apparent
excep-
tions.

TANPWUA
connected
with the
second
sense of
wAnpovr.

Its uses in
classical
writers.

(1) ‘A
ship’s
crew.’

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

orpopa ‘a carpet’, opaipopa ‘a round thing’, etc. In’ many cases the
same word will have two meanings, both however passive; it will denote
both the completed action and the result or object of the action: e.g.
dpraypa the ‘robbery’ or the ‘booty’, dvyraddaypa the ‘exchange’ or the
‘thing given or taken in exchange’, Onpevua the ‘hunt’ or the ‘prey’,
rarnua the ‘tread’ or the ‘carpet’, and the like. But in all cases the word
is strictly passive; it describes that which might have stood after the
active verb, either as the direct object or as the cognate notion. The
apparent exceptions are only apparent. Sometimes this deceptive appear-
ance is in the word itself. Thus xcaduppa ‘a veil’ seems to denote ‘that
which coveis’, but it is really derived from another sense and construction
of kadvrrecv, not ‘to hide’, but ‘to wrap round’ (e.g. Hom. Z7. v. 315 mpoobe
S€ of wémhovo Ghaewov mriyp éxaduev, XX1. 321 Tooonv of dow Kaburepbe
kadvyw), and therefore is strictly passive. Sometimes again we may be led
astray by the apparent connexion with the following genitive. Thus in
Plut. Mor. 78 & djA@pa rot wpoxomrey the word does not mean, as might
appear at first sight, ‘a thing showing’ but ‘a thing shown’, ‘a demon-
stration given’; nor in 2 Thess. i. 5 evderypa ris Sukaias kpioews must we
explain évderypa ‘a thing proving’, but ‘a thing proved’, ‘a proof’, And
the same is probably the case also with such expressions as ovpmrociwv
épéO.opa (Critias in Athen. xiii. p. 600 D), rofou pdpa (Aisch. Pers. 147),
and the like ; where the substantives in -~a are no more deprived of their
passive sense by the connexion, than they are in vmodnpa roday or oTpdpa
kAivns; though in such instances the license of poetical construction may
often lead to a false inference. Analogous to this last class of cases is Eur.
Troad. 824 Znvos éxers kvAikov TANP@pa, KadXloray Narpeiay, not ‘ the filling’,
but ‘the fulness of the cups, the brimming cups, of Zeus.’

Now if we confine ourselves to the second of the two senses above
ascribed to wAnpovr, it seems possible to explain wAnpepa in the same way,
at all events in all the theological passages of St Paul and St John, without
doing any violence to the grammatical form. As aAnpody is ‘to complete’,
80 mAnpeopa is ‘that which is completed’, i.e. the complement’, the full
tale, the entire number or quantity, the plenitude, the perfection.

This indeed is the primary sense to which its commonest usages in
classical Greek can be most conveniently referred. Thus it signifies (1)
‘A ship’s crew’: e.g. Xen. Hell. i. 6. 16 dca ro €k wokAGy wAnpopatar és
édlyas (vais) éxdehéxGat Tos dpictous épéras. In this sense, which is very
frequent, it is generally explained as having an active force, ‘that which
fills the ships’; and this very obvious explanation is recommended by the
fact that wAnpovv vaty is a recognised expression for ‘manning a ship’, e.g.

1 The English word complement has
two distinct senses. It is either (i)
the complete set, the entire quantity
or number, which satisfies a given
standard or cadre, as e.g. the com-
plement of a regiment; or (ii) the
number or quantity which, when added
to a preexisting number or quantity,
produces completeness; as e.g. the

complement of an angle, i.e. the angle
by which it falls short of being a
complete right angle. In other words,
it is either the whole or the part. As
a theological term, mAjpwua corre-
sponds to the first of these two senses;
and with this meaning alone the word
‘complement’ will be used in the fol-
lowing dissertation.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS: | 259

Xen. Heil. i. 6.24. But wAjpopa is used not only of the crew which mans
a ship, but also of the ship which is manned with a crew; e.g. Polyb. i. 49,
4, 5, THv wapovolay Tdv TAnpe@paTor...ra mpochdrws mapayeyovora mAnpo-
para, Lucian Ver. Hist. ii. 37, 38, dd dvo0 mAnpepdrev éuaxorro...mévre yap
elyov mAnpapara; and it is difficult to see how the word could be trans-
ferred from the crew to the ship as a whole, if the common explanation
were correct. Fritzsche (tom. 11. p. 469 sq.), to whom I am chiefly indebted
for the passages quoted in this paragraph, has boldly given the word two
directly opposite senses in the two cases, explaining it in the one ‘ea quibus
naves complentur, /.¢. vel socii navales vel milites classiarii vel utrique’,
and in the other ‘id quod completur, v.c. navigium’; but this severance of
meaning can hardly be maintained. On the other hand, if we suppose that
the crew is so called as ‘the complement’, (i.e. ‘not that which fills the
ship’, but ‘that which is itself full or complete in respect of the ship’),
we preserve the passive sense of the word, while at the same time the
transference to the fully equipped and manned vessel itself becomes natural.
In this sense ‘a complement’ we have the word used again of an army,
Aristid. Or. 1. p. 381 pajre atrdpxers cer Oa mAjpopa évds oixeiov orparevpatos (2) ‘Popu-
mapacyéoOa. (2) It sometimes signifies ‘the population of a city’, Arist, lation.’
Pol. iii. 13 (p. 1284) px) pevroe Suvarol rAjpwpa wapacyxécba moAews (comp.
iv. 4, p. 1291). Clearly the same idea of completeness underlies this
meaning of the word, so that here again it signifies ‘the complement’:
comp. Dion. Hal. A. A. vi. 51 rot & dXiyou Kal ovk« d&touayou mAnpoparos
TO mdeiov eore Syporixoy x.t.r., Hur. Jon 663 tév pirov mAjpop’ abpoicas (3) «Total
‘the whole body of his friends’. (3) ‘The entire sum’, Arist. Vesp. 660 amount.’
TOUT@Y TANpwpa Tddavr’ eyyvs Suoxidea yiyverat npiv, ‘From these sources a (4) «Entire
total of nearly two thousand talents accrues to us’. (4) ‘The full term’, term.’
Herod. iii. 22 dydaxovra 3 érea Cons mAjpapa dvdpi paxporaroy mpoxéeo Oat. (s) ‘Fulfil-
(5) ‘The perfect attainment’, ‘ the full accomplishment’, e.g. Philo de Abr. ment.’
46 (It. p. 39) mAnpopa xpnoray edridov. In short the fundamental mean-
ing of the word generally, though perhaps not universally, is neither ‘the
filling material’, nor ‘the vessel filled’; but ‘that which is complete in
itself’, or in other words ‘ plenitude, fulness, totality, abundance’.

In the Gospels the uses of the word present some difficulty. (1) In Use of
Matt. ix. 16 aipes yap ro mAjp@pa avrod amo Tod ipariov Kal xeipoy cxicpa TANPOLA

yiverat, it refers to the émiBAnua pdxovs dyvadou which has gone before ; but ta net

_ wAnpopa need not therefore be equivalent to éxi8Anpya so as to mean the att. ix.

patch itself, as is often assumed. The following pronoun adrod is most 16.
naturally referred to émi8Anua; and if so mAnpwpa describes ‘the com-
pleteness’, which results from the patch. The statement is thus thrown
into the form of a direct paradox, the very completeness making the
garment more imperfect than before. In the parallel passage Mark Mark ii.
ii. 21 the variations are numerous, but the right reading seems certainly 21.
to be aipet 76 mAnpwpa dm avTov, TO Kawvoy TOD madaod K.T.A. The received
text omits the preposition before avrod, but a glance at the authorities is
convincing in favour of its insertion. In this case the construction will be
aipe. TO TANpopa (ROM.) dm avrod (i.e. Tov iwatiov, which has been men-
tioned immediately before), rd Kawdv (wAnpepa) tod mwadaiod (inariov);
‘The completeness takes away from the garment, the new completeness
17-2

260

Mark vi.
43-

Mark viii.
20.

Usage in
St Paul’s
Epistles

r Cor: x,
26.

General
result.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

of the old garment’, where the paradox is put still more emphatically.
(2) In Mark vi. 43 the right reading is cai jpav Kkracputoy Swdexa Kopi-
vous mAnpopara, i.e. ‘full’ or ‘complete measures’, where the apposition to
koivous obviates the temptation to explain mAnpopara as ‘ea quae im-
plent’. On the other hand in Mark viii. 20 mocwyv omvpidov mAnpopara
kAacpatrav npate; this would be the prima facie explanation; comp.
Eccles. iv. 6 dya6ov éore mAnpopa Spakos avaratioews vmép wAnpopara Svo
Spaxaéy poxGov. But it is objectionable to give an active sense to mAnpepa
under any circumstances; and if in such passages the patch itself is meant,
it must still be so called, not because it fills the hole, but because it is
itself fulness or full measure as regards the defect which needs sup-
plying.

From the Gospels we pass to the Epistles of St Paul, whose usage
bears more directly on our subject. And here the evidence seems all to
tend in the same direction. (1) In 1 Cor. x. 26 rod Kupiov yap 7 yn Kal rd
mAnpwpa avrjs it occurs in a quotation from Ps, xxiv (xxiii). 1. The ex-
pressions ro wAnpopa tis yns, TO TWAnpepa THs Oaddoons, occur several times
in the Lxx (e.g, Ps. xevi (xcv). 11, Jer. viii. 16), where 7d wAjpopa is
translation of xdp, a word denoting primarily ‘fulness’, but having in its
secondary uses a considerable latitude of meaning ranging between ‘con-
tents’ and ‘abundance’. This last sense seems to predominate in its
Greek rendering wAjpepa, and indeed the other is excluded altogether in
some passages, e.g. Cant. v. 13 éml mAnpepara vodrov. (2) In Rom. xiii. 10
mAjpopa vopov 7 ayarn, the best comment on the meaning of the word is
the context, ver. 8 6 dyamav rév Erepov vouov meTANpoxer, SO that mAypopa
here means the ‘completeness’ and so ‘fulfilment, accomplishment’: see
the note on Gal. v. 14. (3) In Rom. xv. 29 év wAnpopate evdAoyias Xprorov
édevoopat, it plainly has the sense of ‘fulness, abundance’. (4) In Gal.

. ly. 4 dre 6€ HAGev 7d TANPwpa Tov xXpovov and Ephes. i. 10 efs olkovopiav roo
- TAnpwpatos Tov katpay, its force is illustrated by such passages as Mark

i. 15 memAnporat Oo Katpos Kal nyytxevy 7 Baoideia «7... Luke xxi. 24 aype
od mAnpobdaow Katpol eOvav (comp. Acts ii. I, Vil. 23, 30, ix. 23, xxiv. 27), so
that the expressions will mean ‘the full measure of the time, the full tale
of the seasons’. (5) In Rom. xi. 25 moépwots ard pépovs TH “Iopand yéyo-
vev dxpls ov TO TANpapa Tov eOvav eicédOy, it seems to mean ‘the full num-
ber’, ‘the whole body’, (whether the whole absolutely, or the whole rela-
tively to God’s purpose), of whom only a part had hitherto been gathered
into the Church. (6) In an earlier passage in this chapter the same
expression occurs of the Jews, xi. 12 «i S€ To mapamtwpa avtay modtos
Kocpov kal TO Hrrnua avtayv TAovTOS eOvady, TOT@ paddov TO TANPwpA avToP.
Here the antithesis between #rrnua and mAjpaua, ‘failure’ and ‘fulness’, is
not sufficiently direct to fix the sense of mAjpopa; and (in the absence of
anything to guide us in the context) we may fairly assume that it is used
in the same sense of the Jews here, as of the Gentiles in ver. 25.

Thus, whatever hesitation may be felt about the exact force of the
word as it occurs in the Gospels, yet substantially one meaning runs
through all the passages hitherto quoted from St Paul. In these zAjpopa
has its proper passive force, as a derivative from mAnpovv ‘ to make com-
plete’, It is ‘the full complement, the entire measure, the plenitude, the

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 261

fulness’. There is therefore a presumption in favour of this meaning in
other passages where it occurs in this Apostle’s writings.

We now come to those theological passages in the Epistles to the Theologi-
Colossians and Ephesians and in the Gospel of St John, for the sake of ¢4! pas-

which this investigation has been undertaken. They are as follows; Rage Uy
Col. i. 19 év adr edddxnoev ray TO TWANp@pA KaTOLKHoAL. Colossians

Col. ii. 9 €v adr@ karouxet may 1d TAnpwpa THs OedTnTOs Topatixds, Kal 2nd Ephe-
€OTE EV AUTO TEeTANPa}LEVOL. ai 0
; Ephes. i. 23 adrév eSaxev xehadiy vmép mavra TH éxkAnoia, Aris éoriv Td
G@pua avrov, TO TANp@pa Tod Ta TWavra év TacLY TANPOUpEVOD..

Ephes. iii, 19 iva wAnpobire cis wav TO TANP@pa TOU Oecod.

Ephes. iv. 13 eis dvdpa réAevov, eis pérpov yAtkias Tov mAnpeyatos Tod
Xpicrov.

John i. 14, 16, cal 6 Adyos aapE eyévero Kal eoxynvacer ey juiv (kat €Cea- St John.
odpeba thy Soéav attov, dSokay ds povoyevods mapa matpos) mAnpyns xaptros
kat ddnOeias...€k TOU mAnpw@paTos avTov yueis mayres EAdBowey Kal yap ayTi
xapiros.

To these should be added two passages from the Ignatian Epistles}, Ignatius,
which as belonging to the confines of the Apostolic age afford valuable
illustration of the Apostolic language.

Ephes. inscr. "Iyvartos, 6 kat Gcopopos, TH evrAoynpevyn ev peyeber Ceod
marpos mAnpapatt”...7H exkAnoia tH a&topaxapiore TH ovon ev Edo k.t.A.

Trail. inser. Iyvarios, 6 kat Ocodopos...€xxAnoia ayia tH ovon év Tpaddrce-

Uy... Kal domdfopat ev TS TANPOpaTi, ev dmoaTOALK@ Xapakrijpt.

It will be evident, I think, from the passages in St Paul, that the word The term
m\npopa ‘fulness, plenitude’, must have had a more or less definite theo- 2as 4 re-
logical value when he wrote. This inference, which is suggested by the i bp
frequency of the word, seems almost inevitable when we consider the form
of the expression in the first passage quoted, Col. i.19. The absolute uso
of the word, wav rd mAj papa ‘all the fulness’, would otherwise be unintelli-
gible, for it does not explain itself. In my notes I have taken 6 Ocds to be
the nominative to evddxnaev, but if the subject of the verb were may rb
awAnpopa, aS some suppose, the inference would be still more necessary. The
word however, regarded as a theological term, does not appear to have been

1 The first of the two passages is
containedin the short Syriac recension,
though loosely translated; the other is
wanting there. I need not stop to en-
quire whether the second was written
by Ignatius himself or not. Theseven
epistles, even if not genuine (as I now
believe them to be), can hardly date
later than the middle of the second
century and are therefore early enough
to afford valuable illustrations of the
Apostles’ language.

2 The common texts read xal rdnpd-
part, but there can be little doubt
(from a comparison of the authorities)
that xai should be struck out. The

present Syriac text has et perfectae for
mwAnpopart; but there is no reason
for supposing that the Syriac trans-
lator had another reading before
him. A slight change in the Syriac,

mslsnazo for rslsarsa,

would bring this version into entire
accordance with the Greek; and the
confusion was the more easy, because
the latter word occurs in the imme-
diate context. Or the translator may
have indulged in a paraphrase ac-
cording to his wont; just as in the
longer Latin version w\ypwpars here
is translated repletae,

262 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

adopted, like so many other expressions in the Apostolic writers}, from the
derived nomenclature of Alexandrian Judaism. At least no instance of its occur-
from Pa- q rence in this sense is produced from Philo. We may therefore conjecture
ere that it had a Palestinian origin, and that the Essene Judaizers of Colossze,
andria. Whom St Paul is confronting, derived it from this source. In this case it

would represent the Hebrew 21D, of which it is a translation in the Lxx,

and the Aramaic rulas or some other derivative of the same root,
such being its common rendering in the Peshito. .
it denotes The sense in which St Paul employs this term was doubtless the sense
thetotality which he found already attached to it. He means, as he explicitly states in
ae * the second Christological passage of the Colossian Epistle (ii. 9), the ple-
ers, ete, roma, the plenitude of ‘the Godhead’ or ‘of Deity’. In the first passage
inthe _— (i. 19), though the word stands without the addition ris Georyros, the signi-
Seis fication required by the context is the same. The true doctrine of the one
i Christ, who is the absolute mediator in the creation and government of the
world, is opposed to the false doctrine of a plurality of mediators, ‘thrones,
dominions, principalities, powers’. An absolute and unique position is
claimed for Him, because in Him resides ‘all the pleroma’, ie. the full
complement, the aggregate of the Divine attributes, virtues, energies. This
is another way of expressing the fact that He is the Logos, for the Logos is
the synthesis of all the various duvdyers, in and by which God manifests
Himself whether in the kingdom of nature or in the kingdom of grace.
Analogy to This application is in entire harmony with the fundamental meaning of
its usage the word. The term has been transferred to the region of theology, but in
oe itself it conveys exactly the same idea as before. It implies that all the
several elements which are required to realise the conception specified are
in Philo, present, and that each appears in its full proportions. Thus Philo, describing
aces the ideal state of prosperity which will result from absolute obedience
amy to God’s law, mentions among other blessings the perfect development of
the family: ‘ Men shail be fathers and fathers too of goodly sons, and women
shall be mothers of goodly children, so that each household shall be the
pleroma of a numerous kindred, where no part or name is wanting of all
those which are used to designate relations, whether in the ascending line,
as parents, uncles, grandfathers, or again in the descending line in like
manner, as brothers, nephews, sons’ sons, daughters’ sons, cousins, cousins’
and in sons, kinsmen of all degrees®” So again Aristotle, criticizing the Re-
Aristotle, mublic of Plato, writes; ‘Socrates says that a city (or state) is composed of
ee four classes, as its indispensable elements (ray dvayxaorarey): by these he
; means the weaver, the husbandman, the shoemaker, and the builder; and
again, because these are not sufficient by themselves, he adds the smith
and persons to look after the necessary cattle, and besides them the mer-
chant and the retail dealer: these together make up the pleroma of a
city in its simplest form (radra wdyta yiverar TANPopa THis MpeTYNS TOAEws);

1 See the notes on Col. i. rg sq. 9 dvdparos Tov boa émipnulferat K.T.d.

2 de Praem. et Poen. 18 (1. p. 423). The construction of the subsequent
The important words are ws éxacrov part of the sentence is obscure; and
olkov mAjpwua elvat worvayOpérou cuy- for duolovs we should probably read
yevelas, pndevds éd\\acGOevTos 7 pwépovs duoiws.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 263

thus he assumes that a city is formed to supply the bare necessities of life
(rév dvaykaiwv xapw) etc.” +, From these passages it will be seen that the
adequacy implied by the word, as so used, consists not less in the variety
of the clements than in the fulness of the entire quantity or number.

So far the explanation seems clear. But when we turn from the Colos- Transition
sian letter to the Ephesian, it is necessary to bear in mind the different from Co-
aims of the two epistles. While in the former the Apostle’s main object Sgincrac to
i is to assert the supremacy of the Person of Christ, in the latter his prin- acai
ie cipal theme is the life and energy of the Church, as dependent on Christ*.

3 So the pleroma residing in Christ is viewed from a different aspect, no

longer in relation to God, so much as in relation to the Church. It is that Corre-
plenitude of Divine graces and virtues which is communicated through sponding
Ohrist to the Church as His body. The Church, as ideally regarded, the ikigers

, ‘ 3 ; , ion of
bride ‘without spot or wrinkle or any such thing’, becomes in a manner rhipwua
identified with Him*. All the Divine graces which reside in Him are to the
imparted to her; His ‘fulness’ is communicated to her: and thus she may Church.
be said to be His pleroma (i. 23). This is the ideal Church. The actual
militant Church must be ever advancing, ever struggling towards the
attainment of this ideal. Hence the Apostle describes the end of all
offices and administrations in the Church to be that the collective body
may attain its full and mature growth, or (in other words) may grow up
to the complete stature of Christ’s fulness£ But Christ’s fulness is God’s
fulness. Hence in another passage he prays that the brethren may by
the indwelling of Christ be fulfilled till they attain to the pleroma of God
(iii. 19). It is another way of expressing the continuous aspiration and
effort after holiness which is enjoined in our Lord’s precept, ‘Ye shall
be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’®

The Gospel of St John, written in the first instance for the same Gospel of
churches to which the Epistle to the Ephesians was sent, has numerous and St John.
striking points of resemblance with St Paul’s letter. This is the case here.

As St Paul tells the Ephesians that the ideal Church is the pleroma of
Christ and that the militant Church must strive to become the pleroma
of Christ, so St John (i. 14 sq.) after describing our Lord as povoyenrs,
i.e. the unique and absolute representative of the Father, and as such
‘full (aAnjpns) of grace and of truth’, says that they, the disciples, had
‘received out of His pleroma’ ever fresh accessions of grace. Each indi-

od

1 Arist. Pol. iv. 4 (p. 1291).

* See the notes on Col. ii. 19 (p.
266).

3 Ephes. v. 27 sq.

# The Apostle in this passage
(Ephes. iv. 13) is evidently contem-

_plating the collective body, and not

the individual believers. He writes of
awdyres, not mayres, and dvipa réde.or,
not dvipas redelouvs. As he has said
before évt éxdory hua €650n [h] xdprs
kaTa To wéTpov Tis Swpeds ToD Xpr-
gTov, so now he describes the result of

these various partial graces bestowed
on individuals to be the unity and
mature growth of the whole, ‘the
building up of the body’, wexpl Kkarav-
Thowpnev of mavres els Thy évéryra...
eis &vOpa Téd\evov, els wéTpov HALkias Tod
aAypwoparos tod Xpiucrov, This cor-
porate being must grow up into the
one colossal Man, the standard of
whose spiritual and moral stature is
nothing less than the pleroma of
Christ Himself.

5 Matt. v. 48.

264 EPISTLE. TO THE COLOSSIANS.
vidual believer in his degree receives a fraction of that pleroma which is
communicated whole to the ideal Church.

The use of the word is not very different in the Ignatian letters. St
Ignatius greets this same Ephesian Church, to which St Paul and St Jchn
suecessively here addressed the language already quoted, as ‘blessed in
greatness by the pleroma of God the Father’, i.e. by graces imparted
from the pleroma. To the Trallians again he sends a greeting ‘in the ple-
roma’, where the word denotes the sphere of Divine gifts and operations, so
that év 76 mAnpepare is almost equivalent to ev 7G Kupio or év TO mvevpate.

When we turn from Catholic Christianity to the Gnostic sects we find
this term used, though (with one important exception) not in great fre-
quency. Probably however, if the writings of the earlier Gnostics had
been preserved, we should have found that it occupied a more important
place than at present appears. One class of early Gnostics separated the
spiritual being Christ from the man Jesus; they supposed that the Christ
entered Jesus at the time of His baptism and left him at the moment of
His crucifixion. Thus the Christ was neither born as a man nor suffered
as aman. In this way they obviated the difficulty, insuperable to the
Gnostic mind, of conceiving the connexion between the highest spi-
ritual agency and gross corporeal matter, which was involved in the
Catholic doctrine of the Incarndtion and Passion, and which Gnostics of
another type more effectually set aside by the theory of docetism, i.e. by
assuming that the human body of our Lord was only a phantom body and
not real fiesh and blood. Irenzeus represents the former class as teaching
that ‘Jesus was the receptacle of the Christ’, and that the Christ ‘de-
scended upon him from heaven in the form of a dove and after He had
The Ce. declared (to mankind) the nameless Father, entered (again) into the ple-
vinthians, roma imperceptibly and invisibly’. Here no names are given. But in

another passage he ascribes precisely the same doctrine, without however
naming the pleroma, to Cerinthus*. And in a third passage, which links
together the other two, this same father, after mentioning this heresiarch,
again alludes to the doctrine which maintained that the Christ, having
descended on Jesus at his baptism, ‘flew back again into His own ple-
roma’’, In this last passage indeed the opinions of Cerinthus are men-

Tgnatian
letters.

Gnostic
SeCLS.

1 iii, 16. 1 ‘Quoniam autem sunt
qui dicunt Iesum quidem receptaculum
Christi fuisse, in quem desuper quasi
columbam descendisse, et quum indi-
casset innominabilem Patrem, incom-
prehensibiliter et invisibiliter intrasse
in pleroma’.

2 i, 26. 1 ‘post baptismum descen-
disse in eum ab ea principalitate, quae
est super omnia, Christum figura co-
lumbae; et tunc annuntiasse incog-
nitum Patrem et virtutes perfecisse:
in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum
de Iesu et Iesum passum esse et
resurrexisse, etc.’

8 jii, 11. 1 ‘iterum revolasse in suum

pleroma’. This expression is the con-
necting link between the other two
passages. This third passage is quoted
more at length above, p. 112. In this
passage however the reference of ili
in ‘quemadmodum illi dicunt’ is
doubtful. Several critics refer it to
the Valentinians, and certainly some
characteristic errors of the Valentinian
teaching are specified immediately
after. The probable explanation seems
to be that it is intended to include
the Gnostics generally, and that Ire-
neus mentions in illustration the
principal errors of Gnostic teaching,

irrespective of the schools to which *

I eee en ee ee

ey a
Ma ea oS ee

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 265

le %,
Op ae

tioned in connexion with those of other Gnostics, more especially the
Valentinians, so that we cannot with any certainty attribute this expression

to Cerinthus himself. But in the first passage the unnamed heretics who
maintained this return of the Christ ‘into the pleroma’ are expressly dis-
tinguished from the Valentinians; and presumably therefore the allusion

is to the Cerinthians, to whom the doctrine, though not the expression, is

ascribed in the second passage. Thus there seems to be sufficient reason Connexion
for attributing the use of the term to Cerinthus'. This indeed is probable this use
on other grounds. The term pleroma, we may presume, was common to 9 Paul ey
St Paul and the Colossian heretics whom he controverts. To both alike it yith the
convey ed the same idea, the totality of the divine powers or attributes or Colossian
agencies or manifestations. But after this the divergence begins. They heretics.
maintained that a single divine power, a fraction of the pleroma, resided in

our Lord: the Apostle urges on the contrary, that the whole pleroma has

its abode in Him? The doctrine of Cerinthus was a development of the
Colossian heresy, as I have endeavoured to show above®. He would
therefore inherit the term pleroma from it. At the same time he The ple-
seems to have given a poetical colouring to his doctrine, and so doing roma

to have treated the pleroma as a locality, a higher spiritual region, localised.
from which this divine power, typified by the dove-like form, issued

forth as on wings, and to which, taking flight again, it reascended

before the Passion. If so, his language would prepare the way for the still

more elaborate poetic imagery of the Valentinians, in which the pleroma,
conceived as a locality, a region, an abode of the divine powers, is con-
spicuous.

The attitude of later Gnostics towards this term is widely divergent. The term
The word is not, so far as Iam aware, once mentioned in connexion with avoided by
the system of Basilides. Indeed the nomenclature of this heresiarch be- Basilides,

longs to a wholly different type; and, as he altogether repudiated the
doctrine of emanations‘, it is not probable that he would have any fondness
for a term which was almost inextricably entangled with this doctrine.

On the other hand with Valentinus and the Valentinians the doctrine but promi-
of the pleroma was the very key-stone of their system; and, since at first nent in
sight it is somewhat difficult to connect their use of the term with St Paul’s Biisnesas

a few words on this subject may not be out of place. ;

Valentinus then dressed his system in a poetic imagery not unlike the Poetic

teaching

On

f “4
ia
A

they belong. He goes on to say that
St John in his Gospel desired to ex-
clude ‘ omnia talia’.

1 I have not been able however to
verify the statement in Harvey’s Ire-
neéus 1. p. Ixxiii that ‘The Valentinian

notion of a spiritual marriage between

the souls of the elect and the angels
of the Pleroma originated with Ce-
rinthus’,

2 See p. 10r sq., and the notes on
i. 19.

3 p. 107 sq.

4 Hippol. R. H. vii. 22 pevyer yap
mdvu kal dédocxe Tas KaT& mpoBodyy Tov
yeyovbtwv ovclas 6 Baoidelins. Basi-
lides asked why the absolute First
Cause should be likened to a spider
spinning threads from itself, or a smith
or carpenter working up his materials,
The later Basilideans, apparently in-
fluenced by Valentinianism, super-
added to the teaching of their founder
in this respect; but the strong language
quoted by Hippolytus leaves no doubt
about the mind of Basilides himself,

266

of Valen-
tinus.

Topogra-
phical
conception
of the ple-
roma.
Antithesis
of pleroma
and keno-
md.

Pleroma
the abode
of the
Jv0nS.

Different
forms of
Valenti-

nianism.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS,

myths of his master Plato. Buta myth or story involves action, and action
requires a scene of action. Hence the mysteries of theology and cosmogony
and redemption call for a topographical representation, and the pleroma
appears not as an abstract idea, but as a locality.

The Valentinian system accordingly maps out the universe of things
into two great regions, called respectively the pleroma and the kenoma,
the ‘fulness’ and the ‘void’. From a Christian point of view these may be
described as the kingdoms of light and of darkness respectively. From
the side of Platonism, they are the regions of real and of phenomenal
existences—the world of eternal archetypes or ideas, and the world of
material and sensible things. The identification of these two antitheses
was rendered easy for the Gnostic; because with him knowledge was one
with morality and with salvation, and because also matter was absolutely
bound up with evil. It is difficult to say whether the Platonism or the
Christianity predominates in the Valentinian theology; but the former at
all events is especially prominent in their conception of the relations
between the pleroma and the kenoma.

The pleroma is the abode of the ons, who are thirty in number.
These Aions are successive emanations, of which the first pair sprang im-
mediately from the preexistent Bythus or Depth. This Bythus is deity in
itself, the absolute first principlé, as the name suggests; the profound,
unfathomable, limitless, of whom or of which nothing can be predicated
and nothing known. Here again we have something like a local repre-
sentation. The ons or emanations are plainly the attributes and energies
of deity ; they are, or they comprise, the eternal ideas or archetypes of the
Platonic philosophy. In short they are deity relative, deity under self-
imposed limitations, deity derived and divided up, as it were, so as at
length to be conceivable.

The topographical relation of Bythus to the derived Aons was dif-
ferently given in different developments of the Valentinian teaching.
According to one representation he was outside the pleroma; others
placed his abode within it, but even in this case he was separated from the
rest by Horus (“Opos), a personified Boundary or Fence, whom none, not
even the Hons themselves, could pass4, The former mode of representa-

1 For the various modes in which former type. There are good, though

the relation of the absolute first prin-
ciple to the pleroma was represented
in different Valentinian schools, see
Nona ried Oodle Pi pok, 25-85 TS:
1, etc. The main distinction is that
stated in the text; the first principle
was represented in two ways; either
(i) as a monad, outside the pleroma ;
or (ii) as a dyad, a syzygy, most com-
monly under the designation of Budés
and Xvy7%, included within the pleroma
but fenced off from the other sons.
The Valentinian doctrine as given by
Hippolytus (vi. 29 sq.) represents the

perhaps not absolutely decisive, rea-
sons for supposing that this father gives
the original teaching of Valentinus
himself. For (1) this very doctrine of
the monad seems to point to an earlier
date. It is the link which connects
the system of Valentinus not only
with Pythagoreanism to which (as
Hippolytus points out) he was so
largely indebted, but also with the
teaching of the earlier heresiarch Ba-
silides, whose first principle likewise
was a monad, the absolute nothing,
the non-existent God. The conception

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

tion might be thought to accord better with the imagery, at the same time.

that it is more accurate if regarded as the embodiment of a philosophical

267

conception. Nevertheless the latter was the favourite mode of delinea-
tion; and it had at least this recommendation, that it combined in one all -

that is real, as opposed to all that is phenomenal. In this pleroma every
existence which is suprasensual and therefore true has its abode.
Separated from this celestial region by Horus, another Horus or

Boundary, which, or who, like the former is impassable, lies the ‘kenoma’ the region

or ‘void’—the kingdom of this world, the region of matter and material
things, the land of shadow and darkness+. Here is the empire of the
Demiurge or Creator, who is not a celestial Aon at all, but was born in this
very void over which he reigns. Here reside all those phenomenal, decep-
tive, transitory things, of which the eternal counterparts are found only in
the pleroma.

It is in this antithesis that the Platonism of the Valentinian theory

reaches its climax. All things are set off one against another in these two of this an-

regions?; just as
The swan on still St Mary’s lake
Floats double, swan and shadow.

Not only have the thirty ons their terrestrial counterparts; but their
subdivisions also are represented in this lower region. The kenoma too
has its ogdoad, its decad, its dodecad, like the pleroma?, There is one
Sophia in the supramundane region, and another in the mundane; there
is one Christ who redeems the ons in the spiritual world, and a second
Christ who redeems mankind, or rather a portion of mankind, in the
sensible world. There is an Aion Man and another Aon Ecclesia in the
celestial kingdom, the ideal counterparts of the Human Race and the
Christian Church in the terrestrial. Even individual men and women, as
we shall see presently, have their archetypes in this higher sphere of
intelligible being.

of the first principle as a dyad seems of his exposition. It seems most na-
to have been a later, and not very ural therefore that he should have
happy, modification of the doctrine of _ taken the system of the founder as his
the founder, being in fact. an extension oasis. On the other hand Irenzus

of the principle of syzygies which Va-
lentinus with a truer philosophical con-
ception had restricted to the derived
essences. (2) The exposition of Hip-
polytus throughout exhibits a system
at once more consistent and more
simple, than the luxuriant develop-
ments of the later Valentinians, such
as Ptolemeus and Marcus. (3) The
sequence of his statement points to
the same conclusion. He gives a con-
secutive account of some one system,
turning aside from time to time to
notice the variations of different Va-
lentinian schools from this standard
and again resuming the main thread

(i. rr. 1) states that Valentinus re-
presented the first principle as a dyad
(‘Appyros or Bvdds, and Zy7): but
there is no evidence that he had any
direct or indirect knowledge of the
writings of Valentinus himself, and

_ his information was derived from the

later disciples of the school, more
especially from the Ptolemmans.

PRM ES god Oyo Rh gs -¥4 El. 4s, Ty 3,
ii, 5. 1, li. 8. 1—3, ii. 14. 3, iii. 25. 6,
7, etc.

9 een 36. gyrdiiyorsq., Ha 14. 3,
ii. 15. 3 8q., ii. 20. 5, ii. 30. 3, ete.

S Trem iS. 190d. Tq. 3:3 comp.
Hippol. vi. 34.

Kenoma,

of pheno-
mena,

Platonism

tithesis.

268

The ITocali-
sation of
the plero-
ma carried
out in de-
tail.

The con-
nexion
with St
Paul’s use
of theterm
obscured,

owing
partly to
the false
antithesis
KEVWULG

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS,

The topographical conception of the pleroma moreover is carried out
in the details of the imagery. The second Sophia, called also Achamoth, is
the desire, the offspring, of her elder namesake, separated from her
mother, cast out of the pleroma, and left ‘stranded’ in the void beyond’,
being prevented from returning by the inexorable Horus who guards the
frontier of the supramundane kingdom. The second Christ—a being com-
pounded of elements contributed by all the AZons*—was sent down from the
pleroma, first of all at the eve of creation to infuse something like order
and to provide for a spiritual element in this lower world; and secondly,
when He united Himself with the man Jesus for the sake of redeeming
those who were capable of redemption’. At the end of all things Sophia
Achamoth, and with her the spiritual portion of mankind, shall be redeemed
and received up into the pleroma, while the psychical portion will be left
outside to form another kingdom under the dominion of their father the
Demiurge. This redemption and ascension of Achamoth (by a perversion of
a scriptural image) was represented as her espousals with the Saviour, the
second Christ; and the pleroma, the scene of this happy union, was called
the bridal-chamber*. Indeed the localisation of the pleroma is as complete
as language can make it. The constant repetition of the words ‘within’
and ‘without’, ‘above’ and ‘beneath’, in the development of this philoso-
phical and religious myth still further impresses this local sense on the term®.

In this topographical representation the connexion of meaning in the
word pleroma as employed by St Paul and by Valentinus respectively
seems at first sight to be entirely lost. When we read of the contrast be-
tween the pleroma and the kenoma, the fulness and the void, we are
naturally reminded of the plenum and the vacuum of physical specula-
tions. The sense of pleroma, as expressing completeness and so denoting
the aggregate or totality of the Divine powers, seems altogether to have
disappeared. But in fact this antithesis of xcévaza was, so far as we can
nake out, a mere afterthought, and appears to have been borrowed, as
irenzeus states, from the physical theories of Democritus and Epicurus®,
It would naturally suggest itself both because the opposition of wAnpys and
kevos Was obvious, and because the word xévepa materially assisted the
imagery as a description of the kingdom of waste and shadow. But in

1 Tren. i. 4. 1 Aéyouow ev oKiats
[oxtds] kal xkevdmatos Tomas ExBeBpa-
g@atx.7.X. The Greek ms reads xat
cxnvwparos, but the rendering of the
early Latin translation ‘in umbrae

[et?] vacuitatis locis’ leaves no doubt .

about the word in the original text.
Tertullian says of this Achamoth (adv.
Valent. 14) ‘explosa est in loca lu-
minis aliena...in vacuum atque inane
lud Epicuri’. See note 6.

2 Tren. i. 2. 6, Hippol. vi. 32.

3 They quoted, as referring to this
descent of the second Christ into the
kenoma, the words of St Paul, Phil,

li. 7 éuurdv éxévwoev; Clem. Alex. Exc.
Theod. 35 (p- 978).

4 Tren. i. 7. 1 Kal Todro elvae vup-
giov kal viupnv, vuimava dé 7d wav
wAnpwua: comp. Hippol. vi. 34 6 vup-
glos abr7s.

5 This language is so frequent that
special references are needless. In
Iren. ii. 5. 3 we have a still stronger
expression, ‘in ventre pleromatis’.

6 Tren. ii. 14. 3 ‘Umbram autem et
vacuum ipsorum a Democrito et Epi-
curo sumentes sibimetipsis aptaverunt,
quum illi primum multum sermonem
fecorint de vacuo et de atomis’.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. | 269

itsolf it is a false antithesis. The true antithesis appears in another, and borrowed
probably an earlier, term used to describe the mundane kingdom. In this from Pe
earlier representation, which there is good reason for ascribing to Valen- bsead cn
tinus himself, it is called not xévopa ‘the void’, but dorépnua ‘the defi- pyt re.”
ciency, incompleteness’, Moreover the common phraseology of the appears in
Valentinian schools shows that the idea suggested by this opposition to their com-
xévopa was not the original idea of the term. They speak of rd mAjpeopa oe
Tov alidver, Ts Tay TANpopa Tay aidver, ‘the whole aggregate of the P
J®ons’?, And this (making allowance for the personification of the Aons)
corresponds exactly to its use in St Paul.

Again the teaching of the Valentinian schools supplies other uses The origi-
which serve to illustrate its meaning. Not only does the supramundane nal mean-
kingdom as a whole bear this name, but each separate Aion, of which that ai shown

. i Be oa ae ; : ; y other
kingdom is the aggregation, is likewise called a pleroma*®. This designa- jos.
tion is given to an Aion, because it is the fulness, the perfection, of which
its mundane counterpart is only a shadowy and defective copy. Nor does
the narrowing of the term stop here. There likewise dwells in this higher
region a pleroma, or eternal archetype, not only of every comprehensive
mundane power, but of each individual man; and to wed himself with this
heavenly partner, this Divine ideal of himself, must be the study of his life. Interpre-
The profound moral significance which underlies the exaggerated Plato- tation of
nism and perverse exegesis of this conception will be at once apparent. omy
But the manner in which the theory was carried out is curiously illus- ‘7 *”
trated by the commentary of the Valentinian Heracleon on our Lord’s
discourse with the Samaritan woman*, This woman, such is his explana-

1 Hippol. vi. 31 xadetrac 6é Spos perv
ctros bre ddopites drd Tod mAnpwparos
éiw 7d vorépnua’ peroxeds 5é dtu peré-
xet kal Tod Vorephuaros (i.e. as standing
between the wAfpwua and vorépnua):
oraupos 66, dri wérnyey adkdwws kal duera-
vojrws, ws uh SivacOat pydev Tod vaTepr-
pearos karayevécbat éyyds Tv évrds TAN-
pwpuatos alévwr. Irenmus represents the
Marcosians as designating the Demi-
urge xapros vorepiaros i. 17. 2, 1. 19.
I, ii, praef. 1, ii. 1. r (comp. i. 14. 1).
This was perhaps intended originally
as an antithesis to the name of the
Christ, who was xkaprds mdnpeparos.
The Marcosians however apparently
meant Sophia Achamoth by this toré-
pnua. This transference from the
whole to the part would be in strict
accordance with their terminology: for
as they called the supramundane eons
aAnpdpara (Iren. i. 14.2,53 quoted in
Hippol. vi. 43, 46), so also by analogy
they might designate the mundane
powers torepjuara (comp. Iren. i. 16.
3). The term, as it occurs in the docu-

ment used by Hippolytus, plainly de-
notes the whole mundane region,

Hippolytus does not use the word
xévwua, though so common in Irenamus,
This fact seems to point to the earlier
date of the Valentinian document
which he uses, and so to bear out the
result arrived at in a previous note
(p. 266) that we have here a work of
Valentinus himself. The word toré-
pnua appears also in Hac. Theod. 22
(Pp. 974).

2 e.g. Hippol. vi. 34, Iren. i. 2. 6.
See especially Iren. ii. 7. 3 ‘Quoniam
enim pleroma ipsorum triginta Aeones
sunt, ipsi testantur ’,

3 See the passages from Irenxus
quoted above, note 1; comp. Eze.
Theod. 32, 33 (p- 977). Similarly
Aéyou iS & synonym for the ons,
ouwvtuws TH Adyy, Exc. Theod. 25 (p.
975):

4 Heracleon in Orig. in Joann. xiii,
Iv. p.2058q. The passages are collect-
ed in Stieren’s Ireneus p. 9478q. See
especially p, g50 olera: [5 ‘Hpaxdéwr] rijs

ee

279

Valenti-
nians ac-
cept St
Paul and
St John,

and quote
them in
support of
their
views.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

tion, belongs to the spiritual portion of mankind. But she had had six!
husbands, or in other words she had entangled herself with the material
world, had defiled herself with sensuous things. The husband however,
whom she now has, is not her husband ; herein she has spoken rightly: the
Saviour in fact means ‘her partner from the pleroma’. Hence she is
bidden to go and call him; that is, she must find ‘her pleroma, that
coming to the Saviour with him (or it), she may be able to obtain from
Him the power and the union and the combination with her pleroma’ (r}v
Svvayiy Kal THY Evwow Kal THY avaKpaclw THY Tpos TO TANpwpa adrijs). ‘For’,
adds Heracleon, ‘ He did not speak of a mundane (xcoopixod) husband when
He told her to call him, since He was not ignorant that she had no lawful
husband’,

Impossible as it seems to us to reconcile the Valentinian system with
the teaching of the Apostles, the Valentinians themselves felt no such
difficulty. They intended their philosophy not to supersede or contradict
the Apostolic doctrine, but to supplement it and to explain it on philo-
sophical principles. Hence the Canon of the Valentinians comprehended
the Canon of Catholic Christianity in all its essential parts, though some
Valentinian schools at all events supplemented it with Apocryphal wri-
tings. More particularly the Gospel of St John and the Epistles to the
Colossians and Ephesians were regarded with especial favour; and those
passages which speak of the pleroma are quoted more than once in their
writings to illustrate their teaching. By isolating a few words from the
context and interpreting them wholly without reference to their setting,
they had no difficulty in finding a confirmation of their views, where we see
only an incongruity or even a contradiction. For instance, their second
Christ—the redeemer of the spiritual element in the mundane world—was,
as we saw, compacted of gifts contributed by all the Atons of the pleroma.
Hence he was called ‘the common fruit of the pleroma’, ‘the fruit of all the
pleroma’’, ‘the most perfect beauty and constellation of the pleroma’’; hence

Sapapelridos Tov Neyduevcy Urd TOU cw-
Thos dvipa TO TANPWKGa elvatavTas,
iva oly éxelvy yevouévn mpos TOY CwTijpa
KouloecOar wap avTod Thy dvvauw Kat
Thy Evwow Kal Thy GvdKpacw THY pos
TO TAHPwWMA aUTHS Suvnly’ od yap
mepl dvdpos, pyali, Kooptxod Edeyev......
Aéywr ality Tov owripa eipynkévat, Pw-
vnody cov Tov dvdpa kal éOe EvOdde* Oy-
Nodvra TOV awd TOU TWAYPwWLaTOS TU-
¢vyov. Lower down Heracleon says
qv adtis 6 dvnp év T@ Alan. By this
last expression I suppose he means
that the great eon Man of the Ogdoad,
the eternal archetype of mankind, com-
prises in itself archetypes correspond-
ing to each individual man and woman,
not indeed of the whole human race
(for the Valentinian would exclude the
psychical and carnal portion from any

participation in this higher region)
but of the spiritual portion thereof,

1 Origen expressly states that Hera-
cleon read @ for wévre. The number
six was supposed to symbolize the
material creature; see Heracleon: on
‘the forty and six years’ of John ii.
20 (Stieren p. 947). There is no reason
to think that Heracleon falsified the
text here; he appears to have found
this various reading already in his
copy.

2 The expression is 6 Ko.vds TOO wXn-
p&maros Kapros in Hippolytus vi. 32,
34 36 (Pp. 190, 191, 192, 193, 196). In
Treneus i. 8. 5 it is xapros mwavrés Tob
TANPWLATOS. ;

3 Iren. i. 2. 6 Tedecdrarov KdAXos TE
Kal dorpov Tov mAnpwuaros.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 27%

a'so he was designated ‘ All’ (wav) and ‘All things’ (rdyra)'. Accordingly,
to this second Christ, not to the first, they applied these texts; Col. iii. 11
‘And He is all things’, Rom. xi. 36 ‘ All things are unto Him and from Him
are all things’, Col. ii. 9 ‘In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead’,
Ephes. i. 10 ‘To gather together in one all things in Christ through God’?
So too they styled him Evdcoxnros, with a reference to Col. i. 19, because
‘all the pleroma was pleased through Him to glorify the Father’. And _
inasmuch as this second Christ was according to the Valentinian theory
instrumental in the creation of the mundane powers, they quoted, or rather
misquoted, as referring to this participation in the work of the Demiurge,
the passage Col. i. 16 ‘In Him were created all things, visible and invisible,
thrones, deities, dominions’* Indeed it seems clear that these adaptations
were not always afterthoughts, but that in several instances at least their
nomenclature was originally chosen for the sake of fitting the theory to
isolated phrases and expressions in the Apostolic writings, however much
it might conflict with the Apostolic doctrine in its main lines®.

The heretics called Docetae by Hippolytus have no connexion with Use of the
docetism, as it is generally understood, i.e. the tenet that Christ’s body term by
was not real flesh and blood, but merely a phantom body. Their views on ie ssi
this point, as represented by this father, are wholly different®. Of their ’
system generally nothing need be said here, except that it is largely satu-
rated with Valentinian ideas and phrases. From the Valentinians they
evidently borrowed their conception of the pleroma, by which they under-
stood the aggregate, or (as localised) the abode, of the Hons. With them,
as with the Valentinians, the Saviour is the common product of all the
Hons’; and in speaking of him they echo a common Valentinian phrase
‘the pleroma of the entire Mons’,

The Ophite heresy, Proteus-like, assumes so many various forms, that and by
the skill of critics has been taxed to the utmost to bind it with cords two Ophite
and extract its story from it. It appears however from the notices of 5°¢#s-
Hippolytus, that the term pleroma was used in a definite theological sense
by at least two branches of the sect, whom he calls Naassenes and Peratae.

Of the Naassenes Hippolytus tells us that among other images bor- (i) Naas-
rowed from the Christian and Jewish Scriptures, as well as from heathen senes.

poetry, they described the region of true knowledge—their kingdom of

3 Tron, 14a06, 1. 3.4.

2 Tren. i. 3. 4. The passages are
given in the text as they are quoted by
Treneus from the Valentinians, Three
out of the four are incorrect.

3 Tren. i. 12. 4; comp. Exc. Theod.
31 (p. 977) ef 6 KaredOcw eddoxla rod
Sou qv &v abro yap wav 76 TAipwpa Fv
TWMATLKWS.

4 Tren. i. 4. 5 rws & aire ra rdvra
kri0}, TH dpara Kat Te ddpara, Opévor,
Oedrnres, Kuptdrynres, Where the mis-
quotation is remarkable. In Eze.
Theod. 43 (p..979) the words run rdyra
yap év air@ éxricfy Ta dpara Kal ra

dopara, Opdvot, kupidrynres, Bactdetat, Oed-
TyTES, NevToupylat’ 51d Kal 6 Oeos adrov
urepvwucer k.T.d. (the last words being
taken from Phil. ii. 9 sq.).

5 Thus they interpreted Ephes. iii.
21 els mdoas Tas yeveds Tov alwvos Tur
alévwv as referring to their generated
eons: Iren. i. 3. 1. Similar is the
use which they made of expressions in
the opening chapter of St John, where
they found their first Ogdoad described:
ib. i. 8. 5.

6 R. H. viii. 10 (p. 267).

7 ib. Vili. g.

8 ib. viii. 10 (p. 266).

272

(ii)Peratae.

Their
theology

and corre-
sponding
applica-
tion of
TANPWUA.

Pistis
Sophia.

Frequent
use of the
term.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

heaven, which was entered by initiation into their mysteries—as the Jand
fiowing with milk and honey, ‘which when the perfect (the true Gnostics,
the fully initiated) have tasted, they are freed from subjection to kings (dBa-
oAevTovs) and partake of the pleroma. Here is a plain allusion to Joh.
1.16. ‘ This’, the anonymous Naassene writer goes on to say, ‘is the ple-
roma, through which all created things coming into being are produced
and fulfilled (wewAnpwra) from the Uncreated’+, Here again, as in the
Valentinian system, the conception of the pleroma is strongly tinged with
Platonism. The pleroma is the region of ideas, of archetypes, which
intervenes between the author of creation and the material world, and
communicates their specific forms to the phenomenal existences of the
latter.

The theology of the second Ophite sect, the Peratae, as described by
Hippolytus, is a strange phenomenon. They divided the universe into
three regions, the uncreate, the self-create, and the created. Again the
middle region may be said to correspond roughly to the Platonic kingdom
of ideas. But their conception of deity is entirely their own. They
postulate three of every being; three Gods, three Words, three Minds
(i.e. aS we may suppose, three Spirits), three Men. Thus there is a God
for each region, just as there isa Man. In full accordance with this per-
verse and abnormal theology is their application of St Paul’s language.
Their Christ has three natures, belonging to these three kingdoms respec-
tively ; and this completeness of His being is implied by St Paul in Col.
i. 19, li. 9, which passages are combined in their loose quotation or para-
phrase, ‘All the pleroma was pleased to dwell in him bodily, and there is
in him all the godhead’, i.e. (as Hippolytus adds in explanation) ‘of this
their triple division (ris odrw@ Sinpnuévns rpiddos)’?. This application is
altogether arbitrary, having no relation whatever to the theological mean-
ing of the term in St Paul. It is also an entire departure from the
conception of the Cerinthians, Valentinians, and Naassenes, in which this
meaning, however obscured, was not altogether lost. These three heresies
took a horizontal section of the universe, so to speak, and applied the
term as coextensive with the supramundane stratum. The Peratae on the
other hand divided it vertically, and the pleroma, in their interpretation of
the text, denoted the whole extent of this vertical section. There is
nothing in common between the two applications beyond the fundamental
meaning of the word, ‘completeness, totality’.

The extant Gnostic work, called Pistis Sophia, was attributed at one
time on insufficient grounds to Valentinus. It appears however to
exhibit a late development of Ophitism*, far more Christian and less
heathen in its character than those already considered. In this work the
word pleroma occurs with tolerable frequency; but its meaning is not
easily fixed. THarly in the treatise it is said that the disciples supposed a
certain ‘mystery’, of which Jesus spoke, to be ‘the end of all the ends’
and ‘the head (xe¢adynv) of the Universe’ and ‘the whole pleroma’s,
Tlere we seem to have an allusion to the Platonic kingdom of ideas,

Dd o Naas atte dle VET: Tiibingen 1854, p. 185.
3 See Késtlin in Theolog. Jahrb. * Pistis Sophia p. 3 sq.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 273

i.e. of intelligible being, of absolute truth, as reproduced in the Valenti-
nian pleroma. And the word is used sometimes in connexion with the
completeness of revelation or the perfection of knowledge. Thus our
Lord is represented as saying to His. disciples, ‘I will tell you the whole
mystery and the whole pleroma, and I will conceal nothing from you
from this hour; and in perfection will I perfect you in every pleroma and
in every perfection and in every mystery, which things are the perfection of
all the perfections and the pleroma of all the pleromas’*, Elsewhere
however Mary, to whom Jesus is represented as making some of His ©
chief revelations, is thus addressed by Him; ‘Blessed art thou above
(rapa) all women that are on the earth, for thou shalt be pleroma of all
the pleromas and perfection of all the Ceaesocmoatt where the word must
be used in a more general sense.

One heresy still remains to be noticed in connexion with this word. Monoimus
Hippolytus has preserved an account of the teaching of Monoimus the the Ara-
Arabian, of whom previously to the discovery of this father’s treatise we bian.
knew little more than the name. In this strange form of heresy the
absolute first principle is the uncreate, imperishable, eternal Man. I need
not stop to enquire what this statement means. It is sufficient for the ©
present purpose to add that this eternal Man is symbolized by the letter 1,
the ‘one iota’, the ‘one tittle’ of the Gospel®; and this 1, as representing |
the number ten, includes in itself all the units from one to nine. ‘This’,
added Monoimus, ‘is (meant by) the saying (of scripture) AJ/ the ple-
roma was pleased to dwell upon the Son of Man bodily’*. Here the
original idea of the word as denoting completeness, totality, is still
preserved.

\

+ ib. p. 15 8G.: comp. pp. 4, 60, 75, parently in the sense of ‘comple-
187, 275. tion’.

2 ib. p. 28 sq.: comp. p. 56. Onp. 7 3 Matt. v. 18.
TA\jpwpa is opposed to dpxy}, ap- 4 RK. A. viii. 13.

COL. 18

274 EPISTLE TO ‘THE COLOSSIANS.

The Epistle from Laodicea’.

Different Tue different opinions respecting the epistle thus designated by
theories St Paul, which have been held in ancient or modern times, will be seen
classified. from the following table;

1. An Epistle written by the Laodiceans; to
(a) St Paul;
(8) Epaphras ;
(vy) Colossee.
2. An Epistle written by St Paul from Laodicea.
(a) 1 Timothy;
(8) 1 Thessalonians;
(y) 2 Thessalonians;
(8) Galatians.

3. An Epistle addressed to the Laodiceans by
(a) St John (the First Epistle) ;
(}) Some companion of St Paul (Epaphras or Luke) ;
; (c) St Paul himself;
(i) A lost Hpistle.
(ii) One of the Canonical Epistles.
(a) Hebrews;
(8) Philemon;
(y) Ephesians.
(iii) The Apocryphal Epistle.

In this maze of conflicting hypotheses we might perhaps be tempted to
despair of finding our way and give up the search as hopeless. Yet I ven-
ture to think that the true identification of the epistle in question is not,
or at least ought not to be, doubtful.

ores 1, The opinion that the epistle was addressed by the Laodiceans to
epistle St Paul, and not conversely, found much support in the age of the Greek
written by commentators. It is mentioned by St Chrysostom as held by ‘some per-
the Laodi- sons’, though he himself does not pronounce a definite opinion on the sub-
ceans. e 2 ° °

Racectan ject? Itis eagerly advocated by Theodore of Mopsuestia. He supposes
aPihis that the letter of the Laodiceans contained some reflexions on the Colos-
theory. sian Church, and that St Paul thought it good for the Colossians to hear

1 The work of Anger, Ueber den _ elaborate, is less satisfactory. A later
Laodicenerbrief (Leipzig 1843), is very monograph by A. Sartori, Ueber den
complete. He enumerates and dis- Laodicenserbrief (Lubeck 1853),is much
cusses very thoroughly the opinions _ slighter and contributes nothing new.
of his predecessors, omitting hardly 2 ad loc. rwés Aéyovow Gre obyt Thy
anything relating to the literature of Ilav)ou mpos avrovs drecraduévnv, ANAG
the. subject which was accessible at ri rap avrav Ilavdw ov ydp ele rHv
the time when he wrote. His expo- mpds Aaodtxéas adda Thy éx Aaodi-
sition of his own view, though not less xelas.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 275

what their neighbours said of them’. Theodoret, though not mentioning
Theodore by name, follows in his footsteps2 The same opinion is also
expressed in a note ascribed to Photius in the @cumenian Catena.
This view seems to have been very widely entertained in ancient
times. It possibly underlies the Latin Version ‘ea quz Laodicensium
est’?: it is distinctly expressed in the rendering of the Peshito, ‘that
which was written by the Laodiceans’% At a more recent date too it
found great favour. It was adopted on the one hand by Calvin® and
Beza® and Davenant and Lightfoot’, on the other by Baronius® and
a Lapide and Estius, besides other very considerable names*®. Latterly
its popularity has declined, but it has secured the support of one or two
commentators even in the present century.

The underlying motive of this interpretation was to withdraw the sup- Reasons
port which the apocryphal epistle seemed to derive from this reference, for it,
without being obliged at the same time to postulate a lost epistle of St
Paul. The critical argument adduced in its support was the form of ex-
pression, rjv €x Aaodixeias. The whole context however points to a different Objections
explanation. The Colossian and Laodicean Epistles are obviously regarded to it.
as in some sense companion epistles, of which the Apostle directs an inter-
change between the two churches. And again, if the letter in question had

1 Rab. Maur. Op. v1. p. 540 (Migne)
‘Non quia ad Laodicenses scribit.
Unde quidam falsam epistolam ad
Laodicenses ex nomine beati Pauli
confingendam esse existimaverunt;
nec enim erat vera epistola. Aistima-
verunt autem quidam illam esse, que
in hoe loco est significata, Apostolus
vero non [ad] Laodicenses dicit sed
ex Laodicea; quam illi scripserunt
ad apostolum, in quam aliqua repre-
hensionis digna inferebantur, quam
etiam hac de causa jussit apud eos
legi, ut ipsi reprehendant seipsos
discentes qua de ipsis erant dicta
etc.’ (see Spic. Solesm. 1. p. 133).

2 After repeating the argument
based on the expression ri é« Aaod:-
elas, Theodoret says elxds 5¢ avrovs 7
Tad év Kodaocals yevoueva alridcacba
Ta ard Tobros vevoonkévat,

This however may be questioned.
On the other hand Beza (ad loc.),
Whitaker (Disputation on Scripture pp.
108, 303, 468 8q., 526, 531, Parker
Society’s ed.), and others, who explain
the passage in this way, urge that it is
required by the Greek éx Aaodixelas,
and complain that the other interpre-
tation depends on the erroneous Latin
rendering. :

4 Or, ‘that which was vyisibiok from

Laodicea.’ The difference depends on

the vocalisation of rare gh which

may be either (1) ‘Laodicea,’ as in vv.
13, 15, or (2) ‘the Laodiceans,’ as in
the previous clause in this same ver.
16.

5 Calvin is very positive; ‘Bis
hallucinati sunt qui Paulum arbi-
trati sunt ad Laodicenses scripsisse.
Non dubito quin epistola fuerit ad
Paulum missa ... Impostura autem
nimis crassa fuit, quod nebulo nescio
quis hoc preetextu epistolam supponere
ausus est adeo insulsam, ut nihil
a Pauli spiritu magis alienum fingi
queat.’ The last sentence reveals the
motive which unconsciously led so
many to adopt this unnatural inter-
pretation of St Paul’s language.

6 ad loc, ‘Multo foedius errarunt

‘qui ex hoc loco suspicati sunt quan-

dam fuisse epistolam Pauli ad Lao-
dicenses ...... quum potius significet
Paulus epistolam aliquam ad se
missam Laodicea, aut potius qua re-
sponsuri essent Laodicenses Colos-
sensibus.’

7 Works 11. p. 326.

8 Ann. Eccl. 8. a. 60, § xiii.

9 e.g. Tillemont Mem. Eccl. 1. ps

576
18—2

276

Views

respecting
the person
addressed.

2. A letter
written
from Lao-
dicea by
St Paul.

1 Timothy.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

been written by the Laodiceans to St Paul, why should he enjoin the Colos-
sians to get it from Laodicea? How could he assume that a copy had been
kept by the Laodiceans; or, if kept, would be given up when required? In-
deed the difficulties in this hypothesis are so great, that nothing but the
most imperious requirements of the Greek language would justify its
acceptance. But the expression in the original makes no such demand.
It is equally competent for us to explain ryv ék Aaodieias either ‘the
letter written from Laodicea’, or ‘the letter to be procured from Laodi-
cea’, as the context may suggest. The latter accords at least as well with
Greek usage as the former}.

The vast majority of those who interpret the expression in this way
assume that the letter was written to (a) St Paul. The modifications of
this view, which suppose it addressed to some one else, need hardly be
considered. The theory for instance, which addresses it to (8) Epaphras?,
removes none of the objections brought against the simpler hypothesis.
Another opinion, which takes (y) the Colossians themselves to have been
the recipients*, does indeed dispose of one difficulty, the necessity of
assuming a copy kept by the Laodiceans, but it is even more irreconcile-
able with the language of the context. Why then should St Paul so stu-
diously charge them to see that they read it? Why above all should he
say kat vpeis, ‘ye also’, when they were the only persons who would read it
as a matter of course ?

2. A second class of identifications rests on the supposition that it
was a letter written from Laodicea, though not by the Laodiceans them-
selves. The considerations which recommend this hypothesis for accept-
ance are the same as in the last case. It withdraws all support from the
apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, and it refrains from postulating a
lost Apostolic epistle. It is not exposed to all the objections of the other
theory, but it introduces new difficulties still more serious. Here a choice
of several epistles is offered to us. (a) The First Epistle to Timothy.
This view is distinctly maintained by John Damascene‘ and by Theophy-
lact®; but it took its rise much earlier. It appears in the margin of the
Philoxenian Syriac®, and it seems to have suggested the subscriptions
found in many authorities at the close of that epistle. The words ¢eypagn
amo Aaodikeias are found in AKL 47 etc., and many of these define the
place meant by the addition jris éort pnrpomodis Spvyias rhs Iaxaravijs.
A similar note is found in some Latin mss. It is quite possible that this
subscription was prior to the theory respecting the interpretation of Col.
iy. 16, and gave rise to it; but the converse is more probable, and in some

_1 See the note on iv. 16.

2-e.g. Storr Opusc. 11. p. 124 8q.

3 So for instance Corn. 4 Lapide, as
an alternative, ‘vel certe ad ipsos
Colossenses, ut vult Theodor.’; but I
do not find anything of the kind in
Theodoret. This view also commends
itself to Beza.

4 Op. 11. p. 214 (ed. Lequien) rip
mpos Tib0cov mpwrnv déye. But he
adds rweés gacly dre ovxt rhv Tlatdou

mpos avrovs émecradpévny...d\rXa Thy
map avrév Iathp ék Aaodixelas ypa-
petoav.

5 ad loc. tls && qv 4 éx Aaodcxelas ;
% mpos Tiddeov mrpairy airn ydp éx
Aaobdixelas éypagdn. twés 5€ gacw sre
qv ot Aaodtxe’s Tlatdy érécreikay, adn’
otc olda rt dy éxelvns @5ec avrots mpos
BeAriwow.

6 ad loc. * Propter eam qua est ad
Timotheum dixit.’

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 277

Mss (a"* 74) the bearing of this subscription on Col. iv. 16 is emphasized,

idod 51) wat 7} ék Aaodseias. This identification has not been altogether
without support in later times’. (8) The First Epistle to the Thessalo- 1 Thessa-~
nians, <A final colophon in the Philoxenian Syriac asserts that it was lonians.
‘written from Laodicea’: and the same is stated in a later hand of d,
‘scribens a Laodicea.’ Again an Ethiopic ms, though giving Athens as

the place of writing, adds that it was ‘sent with Timotheus, Tychicus, and
Onesimus?” This identification was perhaps suggested by the fact that

1 Thessalonians follows next after Colossians in the common order of St

Paul’s Epistles. (y) The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, In the 2 Thessa-
Peshito (as given by Schaaf*) there is a final colophon stating that this lonians.
epistle ‘was written from Laodicea of Pisidia and was sent by the hand of
Tychicus*’ Though the addition of Pisidia wrongly defines the place as
Laodicea Combusta, instead of Laodicea ad Lycum, yet the mention of

the messenger’s name shows plainly that the identification with the missing

epistle of Col. iv. 16 was contemplated. So too the Memphitic ‘ per Silva-

num et Zychicum’, and a Latin prologue ‘per Titum et Onesimum,

Again, an Ethiopic ms points to the same identification, though strangely
confused in its statements. In the superscription we are told that this

epistle was written when the Apostle was at Laodicea, but in the sub-
scription that it ‘was written at Athens to Laodicea and sent by Tychicus’;

while the prolegomena state that it was written and left at Laodicea, and

that afterwards, when St Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians from

Rome, he gave directions that it should be transmitted to the Thessalonians

by the Colossians*, (6) The £pistle to the Galatians®, This might have Galatians.
been chosen, partly because it affords no internal data for deciding where

it was written, partly because like the Colossian Epistle it is directed
against a form of Judaism, and the advocates of this hypothesis might not

be careful to distinguish the two types, though very distinct in themselves.

I find no support for it in the subscriptions, except the notice ‘per Tychi-

cum’ in some Slavonic Mss.

The special difficulties attending this class of solutions are manifold. Objections
(1) It does not appear that St Paul had ever been at Laodicea when he to these
wrote the letter to the Colossians. (2) All the epistles thus singled out S°Utions.
are separated from the Colossian letter by an interval of some years at
least. (3) Im every case they can with a high degree of probability be
shown to have been written elsewhere than at Laodicea. Indeed, as
St Paul had been long a prisoner either at Czesarea or at Rome, when
he wrote to Colossze, he could not have despatched a letter recently from
Laodicea.

1 It is adopted by Erasmus in his
paraphrase; ‘vicissim vos legatis e-
pistolam que Timotheo scripta fuit
ex Laodicensium urbe’: but in his
commentary he does not commit him-
self to it.
p. 17, note k,

2 Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Aithiop.

P. 23.

For other names see Anger

3 In the editio princeps (Vienna
1555) the latter part of this colophon,
‘and was sent by the hand of Tychi-
cus,’ is wanting.

4 Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Aithiop.

p- 23. :
5 Bloch, quoted in Anger p. 17,
note 1,

278

3. A letter
to the Lao-
diceans
written by
(a) St
John,

(b) A com-
panion of
St Paul.
(c) StPaul.

(i) A lost
letter.

(ii) A Ca-
1onical
episile.
(a) He-
brews.
Philas-
trius.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

3. Thus we are thrown back on some form of the solution which
makes it a letter written to the Laodiceans. And here we may at once
reject the hypothesis that the writer was (a) St John'. The First Epistle
of St John, which has been selected, was writien (as is allowed on all hands)
much later than this date. Nor again does St Paul’s language favour
the alternative, which others have maintained, that the letter in question
was written by (0) one of St Paul’s companions, e.g. Epaphras or Luke’.
The writer must therefore have been (c) St Paul himself.

On this assumption three alternatives offer themselves.

(i) We may suppose that the epistle in question has been lost. It has
been pointed out elsewhere that the Apostle must have written many letters
which are not preserved in our Canon’, Thus there is no @ priori ob-
jection to this solution; and, being easy and obvious in itself, it has found
common support in recent times. If therefore we had no positive reasons
for identifying the Laodicean letter with one of the extant epistles of our
Canon, we might at once close with this account of the matter. But
such reasons do exist. And moreover, as we are obliged to suppose that
at least three letters—the Epistles to the Colossians, to the Ephesians,
and to Philemon—were despatched by St Paul to Asia Minor at the
game time, it is best not to postulate a fourth, unless we are obliged to
do so.

(ii) But, if it was not a lost letter, with which of the Canonical
Epistles of St Paul can we identify it with most probability? Was it

(a) The Episile to the Hebrews ? The supporters of this hypothesis are
able to produce ancient evidence of a certain kind, though not such as
carries any real weight. Philastrius, writing about the close of the fourth
century, says that some persons ascribed the authorship of the Epistle to
the Hebrews to Luke the Evangelist, and adds that it was asserted (appa-
rently by these same persons, though this is not quite clear) to have been
written to the Laodiceans*, Again in the Greeco-Latin ms G of St Paul’s

1 A conjecture of Lightfoot (Works
Il. pp. 326, 339, London 1684), but he
does not lay much stress on it. He
offers it ‘rather then conceive that any
epistle of Paul is lost.’ See also
Anger p. 17, note m.

2 Baumgarten Comm. ad loc., quoted
by Anger p. 25, note g.

3 Philippians p. 136 sq.

4 Her. lxxxix .‘Sunt alii quoque
qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebreos non
adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut
Barnabee esse apostoli aut Clementis
de urbe Roma episcopi; alii autem
Luce evangeliste aiunt epistolam
etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam. Ht
quia addiderunt in ea quedam non
bene sentientes, inde non legitur in
ecclesia; et si legitur a quibusdam,
non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo,
nisi tredecim epistole ipsius, et ad

Hebreos interdum. Et in ea quia
rhetorice scripsit, sermone plausibili,
inde non putant esse ejusdem apostoli;
et quia factum Christum dicit in ea
[Heb. iii. 2], inde non legitur; de
penitentia autem [Heb. vi. 4, x. 26]
propter Novatianos eque. Cum ergo
factum dicit Christum, corpore, non
divinitate, dicit factum, cum doceat
ibidem quod divine sit et paterns
substantie filius, Qui est splendor
glorie, inquit, et imago substantie
ejus [Heb. i. 3]’ etc. Oehler punc-
tuates the sentence with which we
are concerned thus: ‘alii autem Luce
evangelist. <Aiunt epistolam etiam
ad Laodicenses scriptam,’ and in his
note he adds ‘videlicet Pauli esse
apostoli.? Thus he supposes the
clause to refer to the apocryphal
Epistle to the Laodiceans: and Fa-

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 279

Epistles, the Codea Boernerianus, probably written in the ninth century, Supposed
after the Epistle to Philemon, which breaks off abruptly at ver. 20, a testimony

vacant space is left, as if for the conclusion of this epistle: and then follows rai
a fresh title
ad _ laudicenses incipit epistola
Tpoc AdOYAAKHCAC = aAPYeTAL —- ETTICTOAH

This is evidently intended as the heading to another epistie. No other
epistle however succeeds, but the leaf containing this title is followed by
several leaves, which were originally left blank, but were filled at a later
date with extraneous matter. What then was this Epistle to the Laodi-
ceans, which was intended to follow, but which the scribe was prevented
from transcribing? As the Epistle to the Hebrews is not found in this
Ms, and as in the common order of the Pauline Epistles it would follow
the Epistle to Philemon, the title has frequently been supposed to refer to
it. This opinion however does not appear at all probable. Anger’ in-
deed argues in its favour on the ground that in the companion ms F, the
Codex Augiensis, which (so far as regards the Greek text) must have been
derived immediately from the same archetype’, the Epistle to the Hebrews
does really follow. But what are the facts? It is plain that the Greek Relation
texts of G and F came from the same original: but it is equally plain that of G. to F.
the two scribes had different Latin texts before them—that of G being the
Old Latin, and that of F Jerome’s revised Vulgate. No argument there-
fore derived from the Latin text holds good for the Greek. But the
phenomena of both mss alike? show that the Greek text of their common
archetype ended abruptly at Philem. 20 (probably owing to the loss of the
final leaves of the volume). The two scribes therefore were left severally
to the resources of their respective Latin mss. The scribe of F, whose
Greek and Latin texts are in parallel columns, concluded the Epistle to
Philemon in Latin, though he could not match it with its proper Greek ;
and after this he added the Epistle to the Hebrews in Latin, no longer
however leaving a blank column, as he had done for the last few verses of
Philemon. On the other hand the Latin text in G is interlinear, the Latin

bricius explains the notice similarly.
Such a reference however would be
quite out of place here. The whole

1 Laodicenerbrief p. 29 sq.
2 If indeed the Greek text of F was
not copied immediately from G, as

paragraph before and after is taken
up with discussing the Epistle to
the Hebrews; and the interposition
of just six words, referring to a
wholly different matter, is inconceiy-
able. We must therefore punctuate
either ‘alii autem Lucs evangeliste
aiunt epistolam, etiam ad Laodi-
censes scriptam’, or ‘alii autem’ Luca
evangelist aiunt; epistolam etiam
ad Laodicenses scriptam.’ In either
ease it will mean that some persons
supposed the Epistle to the Hebrews
to have been written to the Laodi-
ceans,

‘closely allied.’

maintained by Dr Hort in the Journal
of Philology 11. p. 67. The divergent
phenomena of the two Laiin texts
seem to me unfavourable to this hypo-
thesis; but it ought not to be hastily
rejected.

3 Volkmar, the editor of Credner’s
Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Ka-
non p. 299, with strange carelessness
speaks of ‘the appearance (das Vor-
kommen) of the Laodicean Epistle in
both the Codices Augiensis and Boer-
nerianus which in other respects are
There is no mention
of it in the Codex Augiensis.

280 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

words being written above the Greek to interpret them. When therefore
the Greek text came to an end, the scribe’s work was done, for he could no
longer interlineate, But he left a blank space for the remainder of Phile-
mon, hoping doubtless hereafter to find a Greek ms from which he could
fill it in; and he likewise gave the title of the epistle which he found next
in his Latin copy, in Greék as well as in Latin. The Greek title however
he had to supply for himself. This is clear from the form, which shows it
to have been translated from the Latin by a person who had the very
smallest knowledge of Greek. No Greek in the most barbarous age would

have written AaoyAakHcac for AdOAIKeac or AAOAIKHNOYC. The aoy is
a Latin corruption au for ao, and the termination ac is a Latin’s notion of

the Greek accusative. Thus the whole word is a reproduction of the Latin
The spu- ‘ Laudicenses,’ the en being represented as usual by the Greekn. If 80,
rious Lao- we have only to ask what writing would probably appear as Epistola ad
crlstie Laudicenses in a Latin copy; and to this question there can be only one
intended, answer. The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans occurs frequently in
the Latin Bibles, being found at least two or three centuries before the
ms G was written. Though it does not usually follow the Epistle to
Philemon, yet its place varies very considerably in different Latin copies,
and an instance will be given below? where it actually occurs in this

position.
This iden- | Thus beyond the notice in Philastrius there is no ancient support for
tification the identification of the missing letter of Col. iv. 16 with the Epistle
ar naen to the Hebrews; and doubtless the persons to whom Philastrius alludes
% had no more authority for their opinion than their modern successors.
Critical conjecture, not historical tradition, led them to this result.
The theory therefore must stand or fall by its own merits. It has
been maintained by one or two modern writers’, chiefly on the ground of
some partial coincidences between the Epistles to the Hebrews and the
Colossians; but the general character and purport of the two is wholly
dissimilar, and they obviously deal with antagonists of a very different
type. The insuperable difficulty of supposing that two epistles so unlike
in style were written by the same person to the same neighbourhood at
or about the same time would still remain, even though the Pauline
authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews should be for a moment granted.
(8) Phile- (8) The Epistle to Philemon has been strongly advocated by Wieseler 4,

ees 1 Tt is curious that this ms, which tained this view are mentioned by

was written by an Irish scribe, should Anger, p.25,notef. It has since been
give the same corrupt form, Laudac- more fully developed and more vigor-
for Laodac-, which we find in the ously urged by Wieseler, first in a
Book of Armagh ; see below, p. 282. programme Commentat. de Epist. Lao-

2 See p. 286. It occurs alsointhis dicena quam vulgo perditam putant
position in the list of Aelfric (see below 1844, and afterwards in his well-known
p- 362), where the order of the Pauline work Chronol. des Apostol. Zeit. p.
Epistles is ... Col., Hebr., 1, 2 Tim., 405 sq. It may therefore be iden-

Tit., Philem., Laod. tified with his name. He speaks of it
3 See especially Schneckenburger with much confidence as ‘scarcely
Beitrige p. 153 8q. open to a doubt,’ but he has not

4 Some earlier writers who main- succeeded in convincing others,

Re:

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 281

as the letter to which St Paul refers in this passage. For this identification

it is necessary to establish two points; (1) that Philemon lived not at

Colossae, but at Laodicea; and (2) that the letter is addressed not to a

private individual, but to a whole church. For the first point there is
something to be said. Though for reasons explained elsewhere the abode

of Philemon himself appears to have been at Colossze, wherever Archippus

may have resided, still two opinions may very fairly be held on this point.

But Wieseler’s arguments entirely fail to establish his other position. The This epis-
theme, the treatment, the whole tenour of the letter, mark it as private: and tle does
the mere fact that the Apostle’s courtesy leads him to include in the open- 7 poracte
ing salutation the Christians who met at Philemon’s house is powerless t0 tiong,
change its character. Why should a letter, containing such intimate
confidences, be read publicly in the Church, not only at Laodicea but at

Colossze, by the express order of the Apostle? The tact and delicacy

of the Apostle’s pleading for Onesimus would be nullified at one stroke

by the demand for publication.

(y) But may we not identify the letter in question with the Zpistle to the (y) Ephe-
Ephesians, which also is known to have been despatched at the same time ©!#25-
with the Epistle to the Colossians? Unlike the Epistle to Philemon, it
was addressed not to a private person but to a church or churches, If
therefore it can be shown that the Laodiceans were the recipients, either
alone or with others, we have found the object of our search. The argu- Thisis the
ments in favour of this solution are reserved for the introduction to that true solu-
epistle. Meanwhile it is sufficient to say that educated opinion is tending, #°™
though slowly, in this direction, and to express the belief that ulti-
mately this view will be generally received”,

. (iii) Another wholly different identification remains to be mentioned. (iii) The
It was neither a lost epistle nor a Canonical epistle, thought some, but extant un-
the writing which is extant under the title of the ‘Epistle to the Laodi- , sem

: d : pistle to
ceans,’ though not generally received by the Church. Of the various the Laodi-
opinions held respecting this apocryphal letter I shall have to speak ceans.
presently. It is sufficient here to say that the advocates of its genuineness |
fall into two classes. Hither they assign to it a place in the Canon with
the other Epistles of St Paul, or they acquiesce in its exclusion, holding
that the Church has authority to pronounce for or against the canonicity
even of Apostolic writings.

The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans is a cento of Pauline General
phrases strung together without any definite connexion or any clear object. erpimagig
They are taken chiefly from the Epistle to the Philippians, but here and sp ease i
there one is borrowed elsewhere, e.g. from the Epistle to the Galatians. crise
Of course it closes with an injunction to the Laodiceans to exchange
epistles with the Colossians, The Apostle’s injunction in Col. iv. 16
suggested the forgery, and such currency as it ever attained was due to
the support which that passage was supposed to give to it. Unlike most
forgeries, it had no ulterior aim. It was not framed to advance any

1 See the introduetion to the Epistle to Philemon.
2 See above p. 37.

7

282

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

particular opinions, whether heterodox or orthodox. It has no doctrinal
peculiarities. Thus it is quite harmless, so far as falsity and stupidity
combined can ever be regarded as harmless.

Among the more important mss which contain this epistle are the
following. The letters in brackets [ ] give the designations adopted in the
apparatus of various readings which follows.

1. Fuldensis [F]. The famous ms of the Vulgate N. T. written for
Victor Bishop of Capua, by whom it was read and corrected in the years
546, 547; edited by Ern. Ranke, Marburgi et Lipsiae 1868. The Laodicean
Epistle occurs between Col. and 1 Tim. without any indication of doubtful
authenticity, except that it has no argument or table of contents, like the
other epistles. The scribe however has erroneously interpolated part of
the argument belonging to 1 Tim. between the title and the epistle; sec
p. 291 sq. of Ranke’s edition.

2. Cavensis. A Ms of the whole Latin Bible, at the Monastery of La
Cava near Salerno, ascribed to the 6th or 7th or 8th century. See Vercel-
lone Var. Lect. Vulg. Lat. Bivl. 1. p. \xxxviii. Unfortunately we have no
account of the readings in the Laodicean Epistle (for which it would be the
most important authority after the Codex Fuldensis), except the last sen-
tence quoted by Mai Nov. Patr. Bibl. 1. 2. p. 63, ‘ Et facite legi Colossen-
sium vobis.’ Laod. here occurs between Col. and 1 Thess. (Mai p. 62).
Dr Westcott (Smith’s Dict. of the Bible s. v. Vulgate, p. 1713) has remarked
that the two oldest authorities for the interpolation of the three heavenly
witnesses in I Joh. v. 7, this La Cava ms and the Speculum published by
Mai, also support the Laodicean Epistle (see Mai 1. c. pp. 7, 62 sq.). The
two phenomena are combined in another very ancient ms, Brit. Mus. Add.
11,852, described below.

3. Armachanus [A]. A Ms of the N. T., now belonging to Trinity
College, Dublin, and known as the ‘ Book of Armagh.’ It was written in the
year 807, as ascertained by Bp. Graves; see the Proceedings of the Royal:
trish Academy Ut. pp. 316, 356. The Laodicean Epistle follows Colossians
on fol. 138, but with the warning that Jerome denies its genuineness. The
text of the Laodicean Epistle in this Ms is not so pure as might have been
anticipated from its antiquity. I owe the collation of readings which is
given below to the kindness of Dr Reeves, whois engaged in editing the ms.

4. Darmstadiensis [D]. <A fol. Ms of the whole Bible, defective from
Apoc. xxii. 12 to the end, now in the Grand-ducal library at Darmstadt,
but formerly belonging to the Cathedral Library at Cologne; presented
by Hermann Pius, Archbishop of Cologne from A.D. 890—925. Laod. fol-
lows Col. A collation was made for Anger, from whom (p. 144) this account
is taken.

5. Bernensis no. 334[B]. A 4to Ms of miscellaneous contents, end-
ing with the Pauline Epistles, the last being the Epistle to the Laodiceans;
written in the 9th cent. The Laodicean Epistle is a fragment, ending with
‘ Gaudete in Christo et praecavete sordibus in lucro’ (ver. 13). This account
is taken by Anger from Sinner Catal. Cod. MSS. Bibl. Bern. i. p. 28. In
his Addenda (p. 179) Anger gives a collation of this Ms.

6. Toletanus [T]. A ms of the Latin Bible belonging to the Cathedral
Library at Toledo, and written about the 8th century: see Westcott in Smith’s

: wn 3
> Soo z

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Dict. of the Bible, s.v. Vulgate p. 1710, Vercellone Var, Lect. 1. p. Ixxxiv.
sq. The readings in the Laodicean Epistle are taken from the copy of
Palomares given in Bianchini Vind. Canon. Script. Vulg. Lat. Edit. p.
excy (Romae, 1740). In my first edition I had followed Joh. Mariana
Schol. in Vet. et Nov. Test. p. 831 (Paris, 1620), where also this epistle is
printed in full from the Toledo ms. The two differ widely, and the copy
of Mariana is obviously very inaccurate. Anger (see p. 144) does not
mention Bianchini’s copy. In this ms Laod. follows Col.

7. Parisiensis Reg. Lat. 3 (formerly 3562)! [P,]. A Latin Bible, in
one volume fol., called after Anowaretha by whom it was given to the
monastery of Glanfeuille (St Maur), and ascribed in the printed Catalogue
to the 9th cent. Laod. follows Col. on fol. 379.

8. Parisiensis Reg. Lat.6[P,]. A ms of the Latin Bible in 4 vols.

fol., according to the Catalogue probably written in the roth cent. [?]. It

belonged formerly to the Duc de Noailles. Laod. follows Col. It contains
numerous corrections in a later hand either between the lines or in the
margin. The two hands are distinguished as P,*, P,**

_ 9. Parisiensis Reg. Lat. 250 (formerly 3572)[P;]| A fol ms of the
N.T., described in the Catalogue as probably belonging to the end of the 9th
cent.. Laod. follows Col. It has a few corrections in a later hand. The
two hands are distinguished as P,*, P,**.

These three Parisian mss I collated myself, but I had not time to ex-
amine them as carefully as I could have wished.

10, Brit. Mus, Add. 11,852 [G]. An important ms of St Paul’s
Epistles written in the oth cent, It formerly belonged to the monastery of
St Gall, being one of the books with which the library there was enriched by
Hartmot who was Abbot from a.p, 872 to 884 or 885. Laod. follows Heb.
and has no capitula like the other epistles.

11. Brit. Mus, Add. 10,546[C]. A fol. ms of the Vulgate, commonly
known as ‘Charlemagne’s Bible,’ but probably belonging to the age of
Charles the Bald (+ 877). Laod. stands between Heb. and Apoc. It has
no argument or capitula.

12. Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. E. vii, viii [R]. An English ms of the Latin
Bible from Christ Church, Canterbury, written about the middle of the
10th cent. Laod. follows Heb. This isthe most ancient ms, so far as I am
aware, in which the epistle has capitulations. It is here given in its fullest
form, and thus presents the earliest example of what may be called the
modern recension.

13. Brit. Mus. Harl. 2833, 2834 [H,].: Ams of the 13th cent, written
for the Cathedral of Angers. Laod. follows Apoc.

The readings of the four preceding mss are taken from the collstions
in Westcott Canon Appx. E p. 572 sq. (ed. 4).

14. Brit. Mus, Harl. 3131 [H,]. A smallish 4to of the 12th cent.,
said to be of German origin, with marginal and interlinear glosses in some
parts. Laod. stands between Philem. and Heb. It has no heading but

only a red initial letter P. At the end is ‘Expl. Epla ad Laodicenses.
Prologus ad Ebreos,’

1 So at least I find the number given in: my notes, But in Bentl. Crit. Sacr.
Pp. Xxxvii it is 3561.

283

——

284

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

15. Brit. Mus. Sloane 539 [S]. A small fol. of the 12th cent., said to be
German. It contains St Paul’s Epistles with glosses. The gloss on
Col. iv. 16 ‘et ea quae est Laodicensium etc.’ runs‘ quam ego eis misi ut ipsi
michi ut videatis hic esse responsum. Laod. follows Heb., and has no
glosses.

The two last mss I collated myself.

16. Bodl, Laud. Lat. 13 (formerly 810) [L,]. A 4to ms in double
columns of the 13th cent. containing the Latin Bible. See Catal. Bibl. Laud.
Cod. Lat. p.t0. aod. follows Col. Notwithstanding the date of the ms,
it gives a very ancient text of this epistle.

17. Bodl. Laud. Lat. 8 (formerly 757) [L,]. A fol. ms of the Latin
Bible, belonging to the end of the 12th cent. See Catal. Bidl. Laud. Cod.
Lat. p.9. This is the same ms, which Anger describes (p. 145) as 115 C
(its original mark), and of which he gives a collation. Laod. stands between
2 Thess. and 1 Tim.

I am indebted for collations of these two Laudian mss to the kindness
of the Rev. J. Wordsworth, Fellow of Brasenose College.

18. Vindob. 287[V]. The Pauline Epp., written by Marianus Scotus
(i.e. the Irishman), a.D. 1079. See Alter ov. Test. ad Cod. Vindob. Graece
Lxpressum i. p. 1040 sq., Denis Cod. MSS Lat. Bibl. Vindob. 1. no. iii,
Zeuss Grammatica Celtica p. xviii (ed. 2). The Epistle to the Laodiceans
is transcribed from this Ms by Alter l. c. p. 1067 8q. It follows Col.

19. Trin. Coll. Cantabr. B. 5. 1 [X]. A fol. ms of the Latin Bible,
written probably in the 12th century. Laod. follows Col. I have given a
collation of this ms, because (like Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. EH. viii) it is an early
example of the completed form. The epistle is preceded by capitula, as
follows,

IncriPIUNT CaPITULA EPIsTOLE AD LAODICENSES.

1. Paulus apostolus pro Laodicensibus domino gratias refert et horta-
tur eos ne a seductoribus decipiantur.

2. De manifestis vinculis apostoli in quibus letatur et gaudet.

3. Monet Laodicenses apostolus ut sicut sui audierunt praesentia ita
retineant et sine retractu faciant.

4. Hortatur apostolus Laodieenses ut fide sint firmi et quae integra et
vera et deo placita sunt faciant. et salutatio fratrum. Expiicrunt Capitu-
LA. Inoreit EPIsTOLA BEATI PAULI APOSTOLI AD LAODICENSES.

These capitulations may be compared with those given by Dr Westcott
from Reg. 1. E. viii, with which they are nearly identical.

Besides these nineteen mss, of which (with the exception of Cavensis)
collations are given below, it may be worth while recording the following,
2s containing this epistle,

Among the Lambeth mgs are (i) no. 4, large folio, 12th or 13th cent.
Laod, stands between Col. and 1 Thess. (ii) no. 90, small folio, 13th or
14th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess. without title or heading
of any kind. Apparently a good text. (iii) no. 348, 4to, 15th cent. Laod.
stands between Col. and 1 Thess., without heading ete. (iv) no. 544, 8vo,
15thcent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess., without heading etc.
(vy) no. 1152, 4to, 13th or 14th cent. Laod. occupies the same position as
in the four preceding mss and has no heading or title. The first and last

es

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

of these five mss are collated by Dr Westcott (Canon p. 572 sq.). I in-
spected them all.

In the Bodleian Library at Oxford, belonging to the Canonici collection,
are (i) Canon. Bibl. 82 (see Catal. p. 277), very small 4to, 13th cent., con-
taining parts of the N.T. St Paul’s Epp. are at the end of the volume,
following Apoc. Laod. intervenes between Tit. and Philem., beginning
‘ Explicit epistola ad titum. Incipit ad laud, and ending ‘ Explicit epistola
ad laudicenses. Incipit ad phylemonem’. (ii) Canon. Bibl. 7 (see Catal.
p. 251), small 4to, beginning of 14th cent., containing Evv., Acts, Cath.
Epp., Apoc., Paul. Epp. Laod. is at the end. (iii) Canon. Bibl. 16 (Catal.
p. 256), small 4to, containing the N.T., 15th cent. written by the hand
‘Stephani de Tautaldis’.. Laod. follows Col. (iv) Canon, Bibl. 25 (Catal.
p. 258), very small 4to, mutilated, early part of the 15th cent. It contains
a part of St Paul’s Epp. (beginning in the middle of Gal.) and the Apoca-
lypse. Laod. follows Col. For information respecting these mss I am
indebted to the Rev. J. Wordsworth.

In the University Library, Cambridge, [ have observed the Epistle to the
Laodiceans in the following mss. (i) Dd. 5. 52 (see Catal. 1. p. 273), Ato,
double: columns, 14th cent. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess. (ii) He.
I. 9 (see Catal. 11. p. 10), 4to, double columns, very small neat hand, 15th
cent. It belonged to St Alban’s. lLaod. is between Col. and 1 Thess.
(iii) Mm, 3. 2 (see Catal. 1v. p. 174), fol., Latin Bible, double columns, 13th
cent. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess., but the heading is ‘ Explicit
epistola ad Colocenses, et hic incipit ad Thesalocenses’, after which Laod.
follows immediately. At the top of the page is ‘Ad Laudonenses’,
(iv) He. 1. 16 (see Catal. 11. p. 16), 4to, double columns, Latin Bible, 13th
or 14th cent. The order of the N. T. is Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul. Epp.,

Apoc. Here Laod. is between Heb. and Rey.; it is treated like the other |

books, except that it has no prologue.

In the College Libraries at Cambridge I have accidentally noticed the
following Mss as containing the epistle; for I have not undertaken any
systematic search. (i) St Peter’s, O. 4. 6, fol., 2 columns, 13th cent., Latin
Bible. The order of the N. T..is Evy., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul Epp., Apoc.
The Epistle to the Laodiceans is between Heb. and Apoc. (ii) Sidney A.
5. 11, fol., 2 columns, Latin Bible, 13th cent. The order of the N.T. is
Evy., Paul. Epp., Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc.; and Laod. is between 2 Thess.
and 1 Tim. (iii) Emman. 2. 1. 6, large fol., Latin Bible, early 14th cent. The
order of the N.T. is different from the last, being Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp.,
Paul. Epp., Apoc.; but Laod. is in the same position, between 2 Thess. and
1 Tim.

Notice of a few other mss, in which this epistle occurs, will be found
in Hody de Bibl. Text. Orig. p. 664, and in Anger p. 145 sq.

This list, slight and partial as it is, will serve to show the wide circula-
tion of the Laodicean Epistle. At the same time it will have been ob-
served that its position varies very considerably in different copies,

_ (i) The most common position is immediately after Colossians, as the
notice in Col. iv. 16 would suggest. This is its place in the most ancient
authorities, e.g. the Fulda, La Cava, and Toledo mss, and the Book of

Armagh. :

285

286

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

(ii) Another position is after 2 Thess, So Laud. Lat. 8, Sidn. A. 5. 11,
Emman, 2. 1.6: see also mss in Hody Bibl. Text. Orig. p. 664. It must
be remembered that in the Latin Bibles the Epistles to the Thessalonians
sometimes precede and sometimes follow the Epistle to the Colossians.
Hence we get three arrangements in different mss; (1) 1, 2 Thess., Col.
Laod.; (2) Col., Laod., 1, 2 Thess.; (3) Col., 1, 2 Thess., Laod.

(iii) It occurs at least in one instance between Titus and Philemon ;
Oxon. Bodl. Canon. 82. Mai also (Nov. Patr. Bibl. 1. 2. p. 63) men-
tions a ‘very ancient Ms’, in which it stands between Titus and 1 John;
but he does not say how Titus and 1 John appear in such close neighbour-
hood.

(iv) Again it follows Philemon in Brit. Mus. Harl. 3131. This also
must have been its position in the Latin ms which the scribe of the Codex
Boernerianus had before him: see above p. 280.

(vy) Another and somewhat common position is after Hebrews; e.g.
Brit. Mus. Add. 11,852, Add. 10,546, Reg. 1. E. viii, Sloane 539, Camb.
Univ. Ee. 1. 16, Pet. O. 4.6. See also Hody lc.

(vi) It is frequently placed at the end of the New Testament, and so

after the Apocalypse when the Apocalypse comes last, e.g. Harl. 2833..

Sometimes the Pauline Epistles follow the Apocalypse, so that Laod. occurs
at the end at once of the Pauline Epistles and of the N.T.; e.g. Bodl.
Canon. Lat. 7.

Other exceptional positions, e.g. after Galatians or after 3 John, are
found in versions and printed texts (see Anger p. 143); but no authority
of Latin Mss is quoted for them.

The Codex Fuldensis, besides being the oldest ms, is also by far the
most trustworthy. In some instances indeed a true reading may be pre-
served in later mss, where it has a false one; but such cases are rare,
The text however was already corrupt in several places at this time;
and the variations in the later Mss are most frequently attempts of the
scribes to render it intelligible by alteration or amplification. Such.
for instance is the case with the mutilated reading ‘quod est’ (ver. 13),
which is amplified, even as early as the Book of Armagh, into ‘ quod-
cunque optimum est’, though there can be little doubt that the expression
represents ro Aovroy of Phil. iii. 2, and the missing word therefore is ‘ reli-

quum’. The greatest contrast to F is presented by such Mss as RX, where’

the epistle has not only been filled out to the amplest proportions, but also
supplied with a complete set of capitulations like the Canonical books.
Though for this reason these two mss have no great value, yet they are
interesting as being among the oldest which give the amplified text, and I
have therefore added a collation of them. On the other hand some much
later Mss, especially L,, preserve a very ancient text, which closely resem-
bles that of F.2

1 The epistle has been critically In the apparatus of various readings,
edited by Anger Laodicenerbrief p.155 which is subjoined to the epistle, I
sq. and Westcott Canon App. E. p. 572. have not attempted to give such mi-
I have already expressed my obligations nute differences of spelling as e and ae,
to both these writers for their colla- orc and ¢ (Laodicia, Laoditia), nor is
tions of mss, the punctuation of the mss noted.

-EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

AD LAODICENSES.

Pauxus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem sed per
Thesum Christum, fratribus qui sunt Laodiciae. * Gratia vobis et pax
a Deo patre et Domino Thesu Christo.

*Gratias ago Christo per omnem orationem meam, quod perma-
nentes estis in eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, promissum ex-
pectantes in diem iudicii. *Neque destituant vos quorundam vanilo-
quia insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me
praedicatur. °Et nunc faciet Deus ut qui sunt ex me ad profectum
veritatis evangelii deservientes et facientes benignitatem SECENaE quae
salutis vitae aeternae.

° Et nunc palam sunt vincula mea quae patior in Christo ; quibus

Ine. ad laodicenses F; Incipit epistola ad laodicenses (laudicenses P,R)
BDTP,P,P,CRH,SV; Epistola ad laodicenses M (if this heading be not due to the
editor); Incipit epistola pauli ad laodicenses GH,; Incipit epistola beati pauli
ad laodicenses X; Incipit aepistola ad laudicenses sed hirunimus eam negat
esse pauli A: no heading in L,L,H,.

apostolus] om. TM. hominibus] homine G. ihesum christum] christum
ihesum T. christum] add. ‘et deum patrem omnipotentem qui suscitavit eum
a mortuis’ RX. fratribus qui sunt] his qui sunt fratribus A. For fratribus
B has fratres. laodiciae] laudociae T; ladoicie L; laudaciae A; laudiciae R;
laodiceae B.

2. patre] et patre nostro L,; patre nostro H,H,SM; nosiroA. domino]
add. nostro P,P,RGL,.

3. christo] deo meo DP,P,P,CL,; deo meo et christo ihesu RX. meam]
memoriam M. permanentes estis] estis permanentes AGR. in operibus
eius] in operibus bonis H,H,S; om. BDTP,P,P,CM. promissum expectantes]
promissum spectantes T; et promissum expectantes M; promissionem expec-
tantes V; sperantes promissionem AG; sperantes promissum RX. diem] die
BIDP,P,GCRH,H,SL,VMX. _iudicii] iudicationis GRX. :

4 neque] add. enim R. destituant] distituant A; destituunt H,;
destituat M, Spec.; destituit DTP,P,CM; distituit B; destitui P,. vaniloquia]
vaniloquentia BDTP,P,P,GCVM; vaneloquentia, Spec. insinuantium]
insinuantium se GM; insanientium H,S. ut] sed ut BAT; sed peto ne RB;
seductorem ne X. avertant] Spec.; evertant FTML,; evertent B. evangelii]
aevanguelii A (and so below).

5. et nunc..,veritatis evangelii] om. L. faciet deus] deus faciet AG.
ut] add. sint G. qui] que (altered from qui) P,* (or P,**). me] add. per-
veniant TM; add. proficiant V. ad profectum] imperfectum A; ad perfectum

R; in profectum G. _- veritatis evangelii] evangelii veritatis V. | deservientes]'
add. sint P,**P,**H,H.S. For deservientes RX have dei servientes. et faci-

entes] repeated in L,. operum] eorum BX; operam T; opera L,. quae]

om. M; add. sunt AP,**GCRH,H,SVX. It is impossible to say in many cases

whether a scribe intended operum quae or operumque. Ranke prints operum-
queinF. _—_salutis] add. L,. |
6. nunc] nd=non L,. palam sunt] sunt palam G; sunt (om. palam) A.

28 7

Text of the
epistle.

re

288

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

Textofthe laetor et gaudeo. “Et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam; quod

epistle,

ipsum factum orationibus vestris et administrante Spiritu sancto,
sive per vitam sive per mortem. *° Est enim mihi vivere in Christo
et mori gaudium. ° Kt id ipsum in vobis faciet misericordia sua, ut
eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes.

” Ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis praesentia mei, ita retinete et facite
in timore Dei, et erit vobis vita in aeternum: “Est enim Deus qui
operatur in vos. * Ht facite sine retractu quaecumque facitis.

** Et quod est [reliquum], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo ; et prae-
cavete sordidos in lucro. “Omnes sint petitiones vestrae palam apud
Deum ; et estote firmi in sensu Christi. “* Et quae integra et vera et

Christo] add. Ihesu (iesu) DP,P,P,CVX. quibus] in quibus TRMP,.
et] ut C.

7. mihi] michi H,8 (and so below); enim ( for mihi) M. factum] fletum
TL,M; factum est P,**H,S. orationibus] operationibus B. vestris] meis

DP,. et] est TM: om. GRL,X. administrante spiritu sancto] adminis-
trantem (or ad ministrantem) spiritum sanctum FBTL,; amministrante
spiritum sanctum DCP,P,* (but there is an erasure in P,). For administrante
L,X have amministrante; and for spiritu sancto G transposes and reads sancto
spiritu. per mortem] mortem (om. per) H,.

8. mihi] om. M. vivere] vivere vita DTP,P,P,CVH,H,S; vere vita
FL,RMX; vera vitaB; vere (altered into vivere prima manu) vitaL,. gaudium]
lucrum et gaudium A; gaudium ut lucrum H,P,**; gaudium vel lucrum H,S.

9g. et] qui V. id ipsum] in ipsum FBL,; in idipsum L,V; ipsum TP,GM;
ipse AH,H,SRX. in vobis] vobis P,; in nobis H,. misericordia sua]
misericordiam suam FBDAP,P,P,CH,H,RSVL,L,X (but written misericordia
sua in several cases). et] om. 1,; ut V. unianimes] unanimes BDTP,
P,P,GCH,RL,L,VMS8X.

Io. ergojegoH, « utjet I,. praesentia mei] praesentiam ei DP;

praesentiam mei T; praesentiam G**; in praesentia mei P,**; praesentiam

mihi M; presenciam eius L,; praesentiam dei A; presentiam domini (dni)
P,**H,H,S. itaj]om. DP,P,**P,CX. —retinete] retinere A. in] cum TM;
om. B. timore] timorem AB. __ dei] domini H,8, vita] pax et vita RX.
in aeternum] in aeterno A; in aeterna G*; aeterna (eterna) G**PL,.

11. enim]om.B. vos] vobis GATH,H,SRVP,** (or P,*) P,**MX.

12. retractu] retractatu BP,RL,; retractatione AGV; traciu T; reatu H,S.
In P,** ut peccato is added; in H, t peccato. quaecumque] quodcumque
TM.

13. quod est reliquum] quod est FBTDP,P,*P,*RCL,L,MX; quod est opti-
mum GH,H,SV; quodeunque optimum est A; quodcunque est obtimum
P,**; quod bonum est P,**: see p. 290. dilectissimi] dilectissime B. christo]
domino DP,P,P,CX. sordidos] add. omnes P,**H,H,S; add. homines A,
in] ut L,. —_lucro] lucrum RX.

14. omnes] in omnibus G; homines (attached to the preceding sentence)
TM. petitiones] petiones T. sint] omitted here and placed after palam.
H,S. _ apud] aput F; ante AG. deum] dominum A, estote] stote T,
firmi in sensu christi] sensu firmi in christo ihesu R.

15. quae] add. sunt R. integra] intigra A. vera] add, sunt DP,P,P,;

SS a , SS ee
, buy

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 289

pudica et iusta et amabilia, facite. 6 Kt quae audistis et accepistis in ses pe bs the
corde retinete ; et erit vobis pax. aay

8 Salutant vos sancti.

1 Gratia Domini Ihesu cum spiritu vestro.

* Ht facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis.

CVX. pudica et iusta] iusta et pudica R. iusta] iusta et casta AGV;
casta et iusta P,**H,H,S. amabilia] add. sunt TH,H,SM; add. et sancta
RX.

16. audistis] add. et vidistis L,. accepistis] accipistis A. pax] add.
ver. 17, salutate omnes fratres (sanctos for fratres GV) in osculo sancto AGP,**
H,H,SRVX.

18. sancti] omnes sancti AGRH,SVX; sancti omnes H,; add. in christo
ihesu RX. ; ;

19. domini ihesu] domini nostri ihesu (iesu) christi DTAP,P,P,GCH,H,S
VMRX.

20. et] add. hanc H,H,SP,**. legi] add. epistolam L,P,**. _colosen-
sibus et] om. FTDP,P,*P,CVL,L,. They are also omitted in the La Cava MS;
see above p. 282. colosensium] add. epistolam L,. The words colosensibus,
colosensium, are commonly written with a single 8, more especially in the. oldest
MSS. In L, the form is cholosensium,

The last sentence et facite etc. is entirely omitted in M. In RX it is ex-
panded into et facite legi colosensibus hance epistolam et colosensium (colosen-
sibus R) vos legite. deus autem et pater domini nostri ihesu christi custodiat
vos immaculatos in christo ihesu cui est honor et gloria in secula seculorum,
amen.

Subscriptions. Explicit P,P,H,; Exp. ad laodicenses F; Explicit epistola
ad laodicenses (laudicenses R) DP,GCH:;SRYX; Finis T. There is no subscrip-
tion in AL, L,, and none is given for M.

The following notes are added for the sake of elucidating one or two Notes on
points of difficulty in the text or interpretation of the epistle. the epis-

4 Neque] This is the passage quoted in the Speculum § 50 published by tle.
Mai Nov. Patr. Bibl. i. 2. p. 62 sq., ‘Item ad Laodicenses: Neque destituat
vos quorundam vaneloquentia (sic) insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate
evangelii quod a me praedicatur’. We ought possibly to adopt the reading
‘ destituat...vaniloquentia’ of this and other old Mss in preference to the
‘destituant...vaniloquia’ of F. ‘ Vaniloquium’ however is the rendering of
paraoAoyia I Tim. i. 6, and is supported by such analogies as inaniloquium,
maliloquium, multiloquium, stultiloquium, etc.; see Hagen Sprachl. Erérter.
zur Vulgata p. 74, Roensch Das Neue Testament Tertullians p. 7%0.

destituant] Properly ‘leave in the lurch’ and so ‘ cheat’, ‘beguile’, e.g.
Cic. pro Rosc. Am. 40 ‘induxit, decepit, destituit, adversariis tradidit, omni
fraude et perfidia fefellit.’ In Heb. ix. 26 eis adérnow ris auaprias is trans-
lated ‘ad destitutionem peccati’, The original here may have been é£aza-
Troawow OY abernawow. insinuantium] In late Latin this word means
little more than ‘to communicate’, ‘ to inculcate’, ‘to teach’: see the refer-
ences in Roensch tala u. Vulgata p. 387, Heumann-Hesse Handlexicon
des rémischen Rechts 8. v.. Ducange Glossarium s. y. So too ‘insinuator’
Tertull. ad Nat. ii. 1, ‘insinuatrix’ August. Zp. 110 (11 p. 317). In Acts
xvii. 3 it is the rendering of mapariOépevos.

*

COL. 19

-

290

Notes on
the epis-
tle.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

5 ut qui sunt etc.] The passage, as it stands, is obviously corrupt; and
a comparison with Phil. i. 12 ra kar eye paddov eis mpoxomny tov evay-
yediov éAndvGev seems to reveal the nature of the corruption. (1) For
‘qui’ we should probably read ‘quae’, which indeed is found in some
late mss of no authority. (2) There is a lacuna somewhere in the sen-
tence, probably after ‘evangelii’. The original therefore would run in this
form ‘ut quae sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis [eveniant]...deservientes
etc’, the participles belonging to a separate sentence of which the beginning
is lost. The supplements ‘ perveniant’, ‘ proficiant’, found in some mss give
the right sense, though perhaps they are conjectural. The Vulgate of Phil.
i. 12 is ‘quae circa me sunt magis ad profectum venerunt evangelii’. In the
latter part of the verse it is impossible in many cases to say whether a
MS intends ‘operum quae’ or ‘operumque’; but the former is probably
correct, a8 representing épyav trav tas owtnpias: unless indeed this sen-
tence also is corrupt or mutilated. 3

7 administrante etc.] Considering the diversity of readings here, we
may perhaps venture on the emendation ‘administratione spiritus sancti’,
as this more closely resembles the passage on which our text is founded,
Phil. i. 19 8:4 ris duav Senoews Kal emrxopnyias Tob mvevparos K.T.A.

12 retractu] ‘wuvering’, ‘hesitation’. For this sense of ‘retractare’,
‘to rehandle, discuss’, and so ‘to question, hesitate’, and even ‘to shirk’,
‘decline’, see Oehler Tertullian, index p. exciii, Roensch N. 7. Tertullians
p. 669, Ducange Glossarium s. y.: comp. e.g. Iren. vy. 11. 1 ‘ne relinqueretur
quaestio his qui infideliter retractant de eo’. So ‘retractator’ is equivalent
to ‘detractator’ in Tert. de Jejun. 15 ‘retractatores hujus oflicii’ (see
Oehler’s note); and in 1 Sam. xiv. 39 ‘absque retractatione morietur’ is the
rendering of ‘dying he shall die’, Oavar@ droOaveirar. Here the expression
probably represents yapis...diakoyropey of Phil. ii. 14, which in the Old Latin
is ‘sine...detractionibus’. All three forms occur, retractus (Tert. Scorp. 1),
retractatus (Tert. Apol. 4, adv. Marc. i.1, v. 3, adv. Prax. 2, and frequently),

--retractatio (Cic. Tusc. v. 29, ‘sine retractatione’ and so frequently; 1 Sam.

l.¢.). Here ‘retractus’ must be preferred, both as being the least common
form and as having the highest Ms authority. In Tert. Scorp. 1 however
it is not used in this same sense.

13 quod est reliquum] I have already spoken of this passage, p. 286, and
shall have to speak of it again, p. 291. The oldest and most trustworthy
mss have simply ‘quod est’. The word ‘reliquum’ must be supplied, as
Anger truly discerned (p. 163); for the passage is taken from Phil. ili. 1 ro
Aourdv, ddeAoi pov, xalpere ev Kupio. See the Vulgate translation of ré
Aourdy in 1 Cor. vii. 29. Later and less trustworthy authorities supply
‘optimum’ or ‘ bonum’, |

14 in sensu Christi] ‘in the mind of Christ’: for in 1 Cor. ii. 16 vody
Xpicrod is rendered ‘sensum Christi’.

20 facite legi etc.]| Though the words ‘Colosensibus et’ are wanting in
very many of the authorities which are elsewhere most trustworthy, yet I
have felt justified in retaining them with other respectable copies, because
(1) The homeeoteleuton would account for their omission even in very an-
cient Mss; (2) The parallelism with Col. iv. 16 requires their insertion;
(3) The insertion is not like the device of a Latin scribe, who would hardly

patios ge ot

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 2901

have manipulated the sentence into a form which sayours so strongly of a
Greek original.

It is the general, though not universal, opinion that this epistle was Theory of
altogether a forgery of the Western Church!; and consequently that the a Greek
Latin is not a translation from a lost Greek original, but preserves the diseua sed
earliest form of the epistle. Though the forgery doubtless attained its ":
widest circulation in the West, there are, I venture to think, strong reasons
for dissenting from this opinion.

If we read the epistle in its most authentic form, divested of the addi- Frequent _
tions contributed by the later Mss, we are struck with its cramped style. Grecisms
Altogether it has not the run of a Latin original. And, when we come to in the
examine it in detail, we find that this constraint is due very largely to the pct
fetters imposed by close adherence to Greek idiom. Thus for instance we
have ver. 5 ‘gut [or quae] sunt ex me’, oi [or ra] && éuod; operum quae
salutis, €pyav tdév ths cwtnpias; ver.6 palam vincula mea quae patior,
avepol of Seopoi pov ovs vropeva; ver. 13 sordidos in lucro, aioxpoxepdeis ;
ver. 20 et facite legit Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis, cai mowuncare iva trois
KoAacoaeiow dvayyocbn Kat 1 Kodaccaéwv iva [kai] dyiv. It is quite
possible indeed that parallels for some of these anomalies may be found in
Latin writers. Thus Tert. c. Mare. i. 23 ‘redundantia justitiae super scri-
barum et Pharisaeorum’ is quoted to illustrate the genitive ‘Colosensium’
ver. 207, The Greek cast however is not confined to one or two expressions
but extends to the whole letter.

But a yet stronger argument in favour of a Greek original remains. It differs
This epistle, as we saw, is a cento of passages from St Paul. If it had been widely
written originally in Latin, we should expect to find that the passages were ae

: , , ge , atin
taken directly from the Latin versions. This however is not the case. Thus ang Vul-
compare ver. 6 ‘yalam sunt vincula mea’ with Phil. i. 13 ‘ut vincula mea gate Ver-
manifesta fierent’: ver. 7 ‘orationibus vestris et administrante spiritu Sions.
sancto’ [administratione spiritus sancti’?] with Phil. i. 19 ‘per vestram
obsecrationem (V. orationem) et subministrationem spiritus sancti’; ver. 9
‘ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes’ with Phil. ii. 2 ‘ ean-
dem caritatem habentes, unanimes’; ver. 10 ‘ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis
praesentia mei..,facite in timore’ with Phil. ii. 12 ‘Propter quod (V. Itaque)
dilectissimi mihi (V. charissimi mei) sicut semper obaudistis (V. obedis-
tis)... praesentia (V. in praesentia) mei...cwm timore (V. metu)...operamini’ ;
ver. 11, 12 ‘ st enim Deus qui operatur in vos (v. 1. vobis). Et facite sine
retractu quaecumque facitis’ with Phil. ii. 13,14 Deus enim est qui operatur

in vobis...Omnia autem facite sine...detractionibus (V. haesitationibus)’;

ver. 13 ‘quod est [reliqguum), dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo et praecavete’

with Phil. iii. 1, 2 ‘de caetero, fratres mei, gaudete in Domino... Videte’ ; ib.

‘sordidos in lucro’ with the Latin renderings of aicxpoxepSeis 1 Tim. iii. 8

‘turpilucros’ (V. ‘turpe lucrum sectantes’), aioxpoxepdq Tit. i. 7 turpi-
1 e.g. Anger Laodicenerbrief p.142 rum quidem, qui testetur eam a se

8q., Westcott Canon p. 454 8q. (ed. 4). lectam?’ The accuracy of this state-

Erasmus asks boldly, ‘Qui factum est ment will be tested presently.

ut haec epistola apud Latinos extet, 2 Anger p. 165.

cum nullus sit apud Graecos, ne vete-

19—2

292 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

lucrum (V. ‘turpis lucri cupidum’); ver. 14 ‘sint petitiones vestrae
palam apud Deum’ with Phil. iv. 6 ‘postulationes (V. petitiones) vestrae
tnnotescant apud Deum’; ver. 20 ‘ facite legit Colosensibus et Colosensium
vobis’ with Col. iv. 16 ‘facite wt et in Laodicensium ecclesia legatur et eam
3 quae Laodicensium (mss Laodiciam) est ut (om. V.) vos legatis’. These
Thus in-

examples tell their own tale. The occasional resemblances to the Latin
parr Version are easily explained on the ground that reminiscences of this
> este version would naturally occur to the translator of the epistle. The
‘a Greek habitual divergences from it are only accounted for on the hypothesis that
original. the original compiler was better acquainted with the New Testament in

Greek than in Latin, and therefore presumably that he wrote in Greek.
External And, if we are led to this conclusion by an examination of the epistle

testimony itself, we shall find it confirmed by an appeal to external testimony.
to the f There is ample evidence that a spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans was
rt “known to Greek writers, as well as Latin, at a sufficiently early date. A
[Murato- mention of such an epistle occurs as early as the Muratorian Fragment on
rian Frag- the Canon (about A.D. 170), where the writer speaks of two letters, one to
ment.]_ the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, as circulated under the
name of Paull. The bearing of the words however is uncertain. He may
be referring to the Marcionite recension of the canonical Epistle to the
Ephesians, which was entitled by that heretic an epistle to the Laodiceans?.
Or, if this explanation of his words be not correct (as perhaps it is not),
still we should not feel justified in assuming that he is referring to the ex-

tant apocryphal epistle.

Indeed we should hardly expect that an epistle

of this character would be written and circulated at so early a date. The
reference in Col. iv. 16 offered a strong temptation to the forger, and proba-

1 Canon Murat. p. 47 (ed. Tregelles).
The passage stands in the ms, ‘Fertur
etiam ad Laudecenses alia ad Alexan-
drinos Pauli nomine fincte ad heresem
Marcionis et alia plura quae in catho-
licam eclesiam recepi non potest.’
There is obviously some corruption in
the text. One very simple emenda-
tion is the repetition of ‘alia’, so that
the words would run ‘ad Laudicenses
alia, alia ad Alexandrinos’. In this
case fincte (=finctae) might refer to
the two epistles first mentioned, and
the Latin would construe intelligibly.
The writing described as ‘ad Laodi-
censes alia’ might then be the Epistle
to the Ephesians under its Marcionite
title, the writer probably not having
any personal knowledge of it, but sup-
posing from its name that it was a dif-
ferent and a forged writing. But what
can then be the meaning of ‘alia ad
Alexandrinos’? Is it, as some have
thought, the Epistle to the Hebrews?
But this could not under any circum-

stances be described as ‘fincta ad hae-
resem Marcionis’, even though we
should strain the meaning of the
preposition and interpret the words
‘against the heresy of Marcion’. And
again our knowledge of Marcion’s Ca-
non is far too full to admit the hypo-
thesis that it included a spurious Epi-
stle to the Alexandrians, of which no
notice is elsewhere preserved. We are
therefore driven to the conclusion that
there is a hiatus here, as in other
places of this fragment, probably after
‘Pauli nomine’; and ‘ finctae’ will then
refer not to the two epistles named
before, but to the mutilated epistles
of Marcion’s Canon which he had
‘tampered with to adapt them to his
heresy’. In this case the letter ‘ad
Laudicenses’ may refer to our apocry-
phal epistle or to some earlier for-
gery.

2 See the Introduction to the Epi-
stle to the Ephesians.

=

et ae eS ee eee

Pe 4-7

Be ae i ae

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 203

bly more than one unscrupulous person was induced by it to try his hand at

- falsification’, But, however this may be, it seems clear that before the close
of the fourth century our epistle was largely circulated in the East and West
alike. ‘Certain persons’, writes Jerome in his account of St Paul, ‘read Jerome.
also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by all”. No doubt is
entertained that this father refers to our epistle. If then we find that Theodore.
about the same time Theodore of Mopsuestia also mentions an Epistle to
the Laodiceans, which he condemns as spurious’, it is a reasonable inference
that the same writing is meant. In this he is followed by Theodoret*; and Theodoret.
indeed the interpretations of Col. iv. 16 given by the Greek Fathers of this
age were largely influenced, as we have seen, by the presence of the spurious
epistle which they were anxious to discredit®, Even two or three centuries
later the epistle seems to have been read in the Hast. At the Second 2nd Coun-
Council of Niczea (a.D. 787) it was found necessary to warn people against ci! of
‘a forged Epistle to the Laodiceans’ which was ‘ circulated, having a place ~"°"*

in some copies of the Apostle®’

somewhat as follows’:

TE SS

Xpictoy.
' 1 Timotheus, who became Patriarch
of Constantinople in 511, while still a
presbyter includes in a list of apocry-
phal works forged by the Manicheans 7
mevTexaoeKdTy [i.e. Tod ILavdov] mpds
Aaodixetsérioro\}, Meurse p.117(quoted
by Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 1.
p. 139). Anger (p. 27) suggests that
there is a confusion of the Marcionites
and Manicheans here. I am disposed
to think that Timotheus recklessly
credits the Manicheans with several
forgeries of which they were innocent,
among others with our apocryphal
Epistle to the Laodiceans. Still it is

dicean Epistle forged by these heretics
to support their peculiar tenets.

2 Vir. Ill. 5 (11. p. 840) ‘Legunt qui-
dam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omni-
bus exploditur’.

8 The passage is quoted above, p.
275, note I.

4 rwes bréhaBov Kat mpds Aaodixéas
avrovy yeypadévae at’rixa rolyuy kal

possible that there was another Lao- ©

TTPOZ AAOAIKEA>.

*TIAYAQS andctoAoc oyk dm” ANOpwTTON oYAE AP ANnOpadTroy * Gal. i. 1.
AMA AIA *IHco¥ Xpictof, Toic ddeAdoic toic oycin én Aaodikeia.
*>Xapic YMIN KAl €lpHNH AatTd Oeof¥ matpdc Kai Kypioy *lncot ea GRas

mpoopépovort wetTacmévny eriorod}y.

5 Anger (p. 143) argues against a
Greek original on the ground that the
Eastern Church, unlike the Latin, did
not generally interpret Col. iv. 16 as
meaning an epistle written to the Lao-
diceans. The fact is true, but the in-
ference is wrong, as the language of
the Greek commentators themselves
shows.

§ Act. vi. Tom. vy (Labbe virr. p,
1125 ed, Colet.) xat yap rod Oelov dzo-
orbvou mpds Aaodixe’s péperar rracri
émiaTo\n év Tit BiBAoLs Tod darogrbdou
éyKeévn, Av of marépes Hucdv daredoxi-
Bacay ws adrod d\Xorpiary.

7 A Greek version is given in Elias
Hutter’s Polyglott New Testament
(Noreb. 1599): see Anger p. 147, note g.
But I have retranslated the epistle
anew, introducing the Pauline passages,
of which it is almost entirely made up,
as they stand in the Greek Testament.
The references are given in the mare
gin,

The Epistle to the Laodiceans then in the original Greek would run The i ay
restore

204

* Phil; i. $.

4 Gal. v. 5.

© 2 Pet. ii. 9;
iy ae ot
Phil. ii. 16.
£; Tim, i. 6.
& 2 Tim. iv. 4.
b Col. i. 5;
Gal. 31.6, 14.
1Gal. i. 11
(cf. i. 8).

* Phil, 1.12.

PPh, tor:
m Matt. v. 12;
ef. Phil. i. 18.
= Pinal, <i, 19.

© Phil. i. 20.
P Phil, i. 21.

@ Phil. ii. 2.
* Phil. ii. 12.

8 2 Thess. li. 5
(see vulg.).

* Phil. ii. 13.
© Phil. ii. 14.
* Col. 11.1 7,23.
yPhil, iiss,

* 1 Tim. iii, 8;
ae a

* Phil. iv. 6.
by Cor. xv. 58.
ey Cor, i: 16.
4 Phil. iv. 8, 9.

¢ Phil. iv. 22.
* Phil, 1v..23.

® Col, iv. 16.

Scanty cir-
culation in
the East,

but wide
diffusion
in the
West,

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

°Eyyapicta® Ta Xpicta@ én mdcH AeHcet moy, OtI écté EN ayTa
MENONTEC Kal TIPOCKAPTEPOYNTEC TO!C Eproic ayTOY, 7dmeKAEyOmENOI
THN €TTArreAIAN °€ic HMEpAN KPICEDC.

*MHAe YMSC EZATIATHCOOCIN fMaTAlOAOriAl TIN@N AIAACKONTOON
Ina Satroctpépacin yMdc amd BtAc dAHOElac ito¥ eYarreAloy To
eyarreAlcOéntoc ym €moy. "Kal NYN Troldcel 6 Oedc Ina Eta €2
€MOY €IC TIPOKOTIHN TAC AAHOEIAC TOY eYarreAloy » « « AATPEYONTEC
KAl TIOIOYNTEC’ YPHCTOTHTA €prWN T@N TAC coTHpiac [Kai] Tac
aiMNIOY Zoic. °Kal NYN 'aNepol Of AECMO! MOY, OYC YTTOMENG) éN
Xpict@, €N Oic ™yaipo Kal AradAAIMal. "Kal ™TOYTS EcTIN Mol eic
COOTHPIAN SIAION, O Kal ATTEBH AIA TAC YM@N AeHceac Kal éTIyOpH-
flac TIN€YMATOC Aloy, °eiTe Ald ZWAC ElTe AIA OANATOY. *PEémol FAP
TO ZAN EN XpicT@ Kal TO ATIOOANEIN YAPA. *KA TO aYTO TrOIHcel [Kal]
€N YMIN Ald TOY €A€oyc aYTOY, INA TTHN AYTHN APATTHN EYHTE, CYM-
yyyol ONTec. “’*ddcTE, ATATIHTOI, KABGC YTIHKOYCaTE EN TH TlApoycia
MOY, OYTOC "MNHMONEYONTEC MeTA dBoy Kypioy. éprazecde, Kal
ECTAl YMIN ZH Ec TON al@na’ “*Oedc rap EcTIN 6 ENEPF@N EN
YMIN. “Kal "TroleiTe YOOPIC AlAAOFICMAN *6 TI EAN TIOIATE.

*Kat Ytd AoMtdN, APaTTHTO!, yaipete EN Xpictd@. BA€teTEe AE
Toye “aicypokepAcic. “*TANTA TA AITHMATA YMON [NOPIZECO@ TIPUC
TON Oedn. kai PEApaton rinecOe EN “TH NOI TOY Xpictof. **dca Te
OAOKAHPA KAI AAHOA Kal CEMNA KAI AIKAIA KAl TIPOCIAA, TAYTA
Tpaccete, A KAl HKOYCATE Kal TIAPEAdBETE, EN TH KAPAIA KPATEITE,
Kal H €IPHNH €CTAal MEO YMQN.

18@? ACTTAZONTAL YMAC O! ATIOl.

“fH ydpic tof Kypioy “lHco¥ Xpicto¥ meta To TINeYMaTOC
YMQN.

°SkKal TIOIHCATE INA TOIC KoAaccaefciIn ANAPNWCOH, Kal H TON
KoAaccaé@on TNA Kal YMIN.

But, though written originally in Greek, it was not among Greek Christ-
ians that this epistle attained its widest circulation. In the latter part of
the 8th century indeed, when the Second Council of Niczea met, it had found
its way into some copies of St Paul’s Epistles! But the denunciation of
this Council seems to have been effective in securing its ultimate exclusion.
We discover no traces of it in any extant Greek Ms, with the very doubtful
exception which has already been considered%. But in the Latin Church
the case was different. St Jerome, as we saw, had pronounced very de-
cidedly against it. Yet even his authority was not sufficient to stamp it

1 Quoted above, p. 293, note 6. 2 See above, p. 279 Sq.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

out. At least as early as the sixth century it found a place in some copies
of the Latin Bibles: and before the close of that century its genuineness was
affirmed by perhaps the most influential theologian whom the Latin Church
produced during the eleven centuries which elapsed between the age of

295

Jerome and Augustine and the era of the Reformation. Gregory the Great Grégory

did not indeed affirm its canonicity.
restricted the canonical Epistles of St Paul to fourteen, and he found a
mystical explanation of this limitation in the number itself, which was at-
tained by adding the number of the Commandments to the number of the
Gospels and thus fitly represented the teaching of the Apostle which com-
bines the two!. But at the same time he states that the Apostle wrote
fifteen; and, though he does not mention the Epistle to the Laodiceans by
name, there can be little doubt that he intended to include this as his
fifteenth epistle, and that his words were rightly understood by subsequent
writers as affirming its Pauline authorship. The influence of this great
name is perceptible in the statements of later writers.

He pronounced that the Church had the Great.

Haymo of Halber- Haymo of

stadt, who died a.p. 853, commenting on Col. iv. 16, says, The Apostle ‘en- Halber-

joins the Laodicean Epistle to be read to the Colossians, because though it 824+

is very short and is not reckoned in the Canon, yet still it has some use”’.

And between two or three centuries later Hervey of Dole (c. a.p, 1130), if it Hervey of

be not Anselm of Laon’, commenting on this same passage, says: ‘Although Dole.

the Apostle wrote this epistle also as his fifteenth or sixteenth‘, and it is
established by Apostolic authority like the rest, yet holy Church does not
reckon more than fourteen’, and he proceeds to justify this limitation of

See

the Canon with the arguments and in the language of Gregory®,

1 Greg. Magn. Mor. in Iob. xxxv.
§ 25 (11. p. 433, ed. Gallicc.) ‘Recte
vita ecclesiae multiplicata per decem
et quattuor computatur; quia utrum-
que testamentum custodiens, et tam
secundum Legis decalogum quam se-
¢cundum quattuor Evangelii libros vi-
vens, usque ad perfectionis culmen
extenditur. Unde et Paulus aposto-
lus quamvis epistolas quindecim scrip-
serit, sancta tamen ecclesia non am-
plius quam quatuordecim tenet, ut ex
ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet
quod doctor egregius Legis et Evange-
lii secreta rimassct’.

2 Patrol. Lat. oxvit. p. 765 (ed.
Migne) ‘Et eam quae erat Laodicen-
sium ideo praecipit Colossensibus legi,
quia, licet perparva sit et in Canone
non habeatur, aliquid tamen utilitatis
habet’. He uses the expression ‘eam
quae erat Laodicensium’, because ri éx
Aaodixelas was translated in the Latin
Bible ‘eam quae Laodicensium est’.

3 See Galatians p. 232 on the au-
thorship of this commentary.

4 A third Epistle to the Corinthians
being perhaps reckoned as the 15th;
see Fabric. Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test. 11.
p. 866.

5 Patrol. Lat. OLxXxxl. p. 1355 8q.-

(ed. Migne) ‘et ea similiter epistola,
quae Laodicensium est, i.e. quam ego
Laodicensibus misi, legatur vobis.
Quamvis et hance epistolam quintam-
decimam vel sextamdecimam aposto-
lus scripserit, et auctoritas eam apo-
stolica sicut caetera firmavit, sancta
tamen ecclesia non amplius quam qua-
tuordecim tenet, ut ex ipso epistola-
rum numero ostenderet etc.’ At the
end of the notes to the Colossians he
adds, ‘Hucusque protenditur epistola
quae missa est ad Colossenses. Con-
gruum autem videtur ut propter noti-
tiam legentium subjiciamus eam quae
est ad Laodicenses directa; quam, ut
diximus, in usu non habet ecclesia.
Kst ergo talis.’ Then follows the text
of the Laodicean Epistle, but it is not
annotated.

Others

296

‘English
Church.

Aelfric.

John of
Salisbury.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

however did not confine themselves to the qualified recognition given to the
epistle by the great Bishop of Rome. Gregory had carefully distinguished
between genuineness and canonicity; but this important distinction was not
seldom disregarded by later writers. In the English Church more especi-
ally it was forgotten. Thus Aelfric abbot of Cerne, who wrote during the
closing years of the tenth century, speaks as follows of St Paul: ‘Fifteen
epistles wrote this one Apostle to the nations by him converted unto the
faith : which are large books in the Bible and make much for our amend-
ment, if we follow his doctrine that was teacher of the Gentiles’. He then
gives a list of the Apostle’s writings, which closes with ‘one to Philemon
and one to the Laodiceans; fifteen in all as loud as thunder to faithful
people!’, Again, nearly two centuries later John of Salisbury, likewise
writing on the Canon, reckons ‘Fifteen epistles of Paul included in one
volume, though it be the wide-spread and common opinion of nearly all that
there are only fourteen; ten to churches and four to individuals: supposing
that the one addressed to the Hebrews is to be reckoned among the Epistles
of Paul, as Jerome the doctor of doctors seems to lay down in his preface,
where he refuteth the cavils of those who contended that it was not Paul’s.
But the fifteenth is that which is addressed to the Church of the Laodi-
ceans; and though, as Jerome saith, it be rejected by all, nevertheless was
it written by the Apostle. Nor“is this opinion assumed on the conjecture

of others, but it is confirmed by the testimony of the Apostle himself: for

The epis-
tle repu-

diated by
Lanfrane,

he maketh mention of it in the Epistle to the Colossians in these words,
When this epistle shall have been read among you, etc. (Col. iv, 16)*’.
Aclfric and John are the typical theologians of the Church in this country
in their respective ages. The Conquest effected a revolution in ecclesiasti-
cal and theological matters. The Old English Church was separated from
the Anglo-Norman Church in not a few points both of doctrine and of disci-
pline. Yet here we find the representative men of learning in both agreed
on this one point—the authorship and canonicity of the Epistle to the
Laodiceans. From the language of John of Salisbury however it appears
that such was not the common verdict at least in his age, and that on this
point the instinct of the many was more sound than the learning of the few.
Nor indeed was it the undisputed opinion even of the learned in this coun-
try during this interval. The first Norman Archbishop, Lanfrane, an Italian
by birth and education, explains the passage in the Colossian Epistle as
referring to a letter written by the Laodiceans to the Apostle, and adds that

1 A Saxon Treatise concerning the Old
and New Testament by ilfricus Abbas,
p. 28 (ed. W. L’Isle, London 1623).

2 Joann. Sarisb. Epist. 143 (I. p. 210
ed. Giles) ‘Epistolae Pauli quindecim
uno volumine comprehensae, licet sit
vulgata et fere omnium communis
Opinio non esse nisi quatuordecim,
decem ad ecclesias, quatuor ad perso-
nas; si tamen illa quae ad Hebraeos
est connumeranda est epistolis Pauli,
quod in praefatione ejus astruere vide-
tur doctorum doctor Hieronymus, illo-

rum dissolvens argutias qui eam Pauli
non esse contendebant. Caeterum
quintadecima est illa quae ecclesiae
Laodicensium scribitur ; et licet, ut ait
Hieronymus, ab omnibus explodatur,
tamen ab apostolo scripta est: neque
sententia haec de aliorum praesumitur
opinione sed ipsius apostoli testimonio
roboratur. Meminit enim ipsius in
epistola ad Colossenses his verbis,
Quum lecta fuerit apud vos haec epi-
stola, etc.’

ae:

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

otherwise ‘there would be more than thirteen Epistles of Paul!’. Thus
he tacitly ignores the Epistle to the Laodiceans, with ok he can hardly
have been unacquainted.

Indeed the safest criterion of the extent to which this opinion prevailed, Occur-
is to be found in the manuscripts. At all ages from the sixth to the rence in

fifteenth century we have examples of its occurrence among the Pauline |

Epistles and most frequently without any marks which imply doubt respect- calc ye

ing its canonicity. These instances are more common in proportion to
the number of extant mss in the earlier epoch than in the later. In one
of the three or four extant authorities for the Old Latin Version of the
Pauline Epistles it has a place*. In one of the two most ancient copies of
Jerome’s revised Vulgate it is found’. Among the first class mss of
this latter version its insertion is almost as common as its omission. This
phenomenon moreover is not confined to ary one country. Italy, Spain,
France, Ireland, England, Germany, Switzerland—all the great nations of
Latin Christendom—contribute examples of early manuscripts in which
this epistle has a place‘.

And, when the Scriptures came to be translated into the vernacular Versions.
languages of modern Europe, this epistle was not uncommonly included. Albigen-
Thus we meet with an Albigensian version, which is said to belong to the Sian.
Thus too it is found in the Bohemian language, both Bohemian.

thirteenth century ®.
in manuscript and in the early printed Bibles, in various recensions’.

And again an old German translation is extant, which, judging from lin- German,

guistic peculiarities, cannot be assigned to a later date than about the
fourteenth century, and was printed in not less than fourteen editions of
the German Bible at the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the
sixteenth centuries, before Luther’s version appeared’,
lish Bibles too it has a place. Though it was excluded by both Wycliffe and
Purvey, yet it did not long remain untranslated and appears in two
different and quite independent versions, in Mss written before the middle

In the early Eng- English.

of the fifteenth century®.
two forms runs as follows:

1 Patrol. Lat. cu. p. 331 (ed. Migne)
on Col. iv. 16 ‘Haec si esset apostoli,
ad Laodicenses diceret, non Laodicen-
sium; et plusquam tredecim essent
epistolae Pauli’, We shonld perhaps
read xiiii for xiii, ‘quatuordecim’ for
‘tredecim’, as Lanfranc is not likely
to have questioned the Pauline author-
ship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

2 The proportion however is very
different in different collections. Inthe
Cambridge University Library I found
the epistle in four only out of some
thirty mss which I inspected; whereas
in the Lambeth Library the proportion
was far greater.

3 The Speculum of Mai, see above,
p. 282.

4 The Codex Fuldensis, which was

The prologue prefixed to the commoner of the

written within a few years of the Co-
dex Amiatinus.

5 The list of mss given above, p. 282
8q., will substantiate this statement.

6 An account of this ms, which is at
Lyons, is given by Reuss in the Revue
de Théologie v. p. 334 (Strassb. 1852).
He ascribes the translation of the New
Testament to the 13th century, and
dates the ms a little later.

7 This version is printed by Anger,
p- 170 sq.

8 See Anger, p. 149 8q., p. 166 sq.

9 These two versions are printed in
Lewis’s New Testament translated by
J. Wiclif (1731) p.99 8q.,and in Forshall
and Madden’s Wyclifiite Versions of
the Holy Bible (1850) tv. p. 438 Sq.
They are also given by Anger p. 168 sq.

2908

English
prologue.

Two Ver-
sions of
the epis-
tle.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

‘Laodicensis ben also Colocenses,
These ben of Asie, and among hem hadden be false apostlis,
Therfore the postle bringith hem to mynde of

maners.
and disceyuede manye.

as tweye townes and oo pepie in

his conuersacion and trewe preching of the gospel, and excitith hem to be

stidfast in the trewe witt and loue of Crist, and to be of oo wil.

But this

pistil is not in comyn Latyn bookis, and therfor it was but late translatid

into Englisch tunge’

The two forms of the epistle in its English dress are as follows?.

The

version on the left hand is extant only in a single ms ; the other, which oc-
cupies the right column, is comparatively common.

‘Poul, apostle, not of men, ne
bi man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to
the britheren that ben of Lao-
dice, grace to 30u, and pees of
God the fadir, and of the Lord
Jhesu Crist. Gracis I do to Crist
bi al myn orisoun, that 3e be
dwellinge in him and lastinge, bi
the biheest abidinge in the dai
of doom. Ne he vnordeynede *vs
of sum veyn speche feynynge,
that vs ouerturne fro the sothfast-
nesse of the gospel that of me
is prechid. Also now schal God
do hem leuynge, and doynge of
blessdnesse of werkis, which heelthe
of lyf is. And now openli ben
my boondis, whiche I suffre in
Crist Jhesu, in whiche I glad
and ioie. And that is to me
heelthe ceuerlastynge, that that I
dide with oure preieris, and my-
nystringe the Holy Spirit, bi lijf

(1843), who takes the rarer form from
Lewis and the other from a Dresden
ms. Dr Westcott also has printed the
commoner version in his Canon, p. 457
(ed. 4), from Forshall and Madden.

Of one of these two versions For-
shall and Madden give a collation
of several mss; the other is taken from
a Single Ms (1. p. xxxii). Lewis does
not state whence he derived the rarer
of these two versions, but there can be
little doubt that it came from the same
Ms Pepys. 2073 (belonging to Magd. Coll.
Cambridge) from which it was taken by
Forshall and Madden (r. p. lvii); since
he elsewhere mentions using this Ms
(p. 104). The version is not known to

‘Poul,apostle,not of men,ne by man,
but bi Jhesu Crist, to the britheren
that ben at Laodice, grace to 30u, and
pees of God the fadir, and of the
Lord Jhesu Crist. I do thankyngis
to my God bial my preier, that 3e be
dwelling and lastyng in him, abiding
the biheest in the day of doom. For
neithir the veyn spekyng of summe
ynwise men hath lettide 30u, the
whiche wolden turne 30u fro the
treuthe of the gospel, that is prechid
of me. And now hem that ben of
me, to the profiz3t of truthe of the
gospel, God schal make disseruyng,
and doyng benygnyte of werkis, and
helthe of euerlasting lijf. And now
my boondis ben open, which Y suffre
in Crist Jhesu, in whiche Y glade and
ioie. And that is to me to euerlast-
yng helthe, that this same thing be
doon by 30ure preiers, and mynys-
tryng of the Holi Goost, either bi

exist in any other. Forshall and Mad-
den given the date of the ms as about
1440.

1 From Forshall and Madden, tv. p.
438. The earliest mss which contain
the common version of the Laodicean
Epistle (to which this prologue is pre-
fixed) date about a.p. 1430.

2 Printed from Forshall and Madden
l.c. I am assured by those who are
thoroughly conversant with old Eng-
lish, that they can discern no differ-
ence of date in these two versions,
and that they both belong probably to
the early years of the 15th century.
The rarer version is taken from a bet-
ter Latin text than the other.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

‘or bi deeth. It is forsothe to me
lijf into Crist, and to die ioie
withouten eende. In vs he schal
‘do his merci, that 3e haue the
same louynge, and that 3e be of
o wil. Therfore, derlyngis, as 3e
han herd in presence of me,
hold 3e, and do 3e in drede of
God; and it schal be to 30u lijf
withouten eend. It is forsothe
God that worchith in vs. And do
3e withouten ony withdrawinge,
what soeuere 3e doon. And that
it is, dérlyngis, ioie 3e in Crist,
and fiee 3e maad foul in clay.
Alle 3oure axingis ben open anentis
God, and be 3e fastned in the
witt of Crist. And whiche been
hool, and sooth, and chast, and
rightwijs, and louable, do 3e; and
whiche herden and take in herte,
hold 3e; and it schal be to 30u
pees. Holi men greeten 30u weel,
in the grace of oure Lord Jhesu
Crist, with the Holi Goost. And
do 3e that pistil of Colosensis to
be red to 30u. Amen,

lijf, either bi deeth. Forsothe to me
it is lijf to lyue in Crist, and to die
ioie. And his mercy schal do in 30u
the same thing, that 3e moun haue
the same loue, and that 3e be of oo
will, Therfore, 3e¢ weel biloued
britheren, holde 3e, and do 3e in the
dreede of God, as 3e han herde
the presence of me; and lijf schal
be to 30u withouten eende. Sotheli
it is God that worchith in 30u. And,
my weel biloued britheren, do 3e
without eny withdrawyng what euer
thingis 3e don. Joie 3e in Crist, and
eschewe 3e men defoulid in lucre,
either foul wynnyng. Be alle 30ure
askyngis open anentis God, and be
3e stidefast in the witt of Crist. And
do 3e tho thingis that ben hool, and
trewe, and chaast, and iust, and able
to be loued; and kepe 3e in herte
tho thingis that 3e haue herd and
take ; and pees schal be to 30u. Alle
holi men greten30u weel. The grace
of oure Lord Jhesu Crist be with

3oure spirit. And do 3e that pistil

of Colocensis to be red to 30u.

Thus for more than nine centuries this forged epistle hovered about Revival of
the doors of the sacred Canon, without either finding admission or being learning
peremptorily excluded. At length the revival of learning dealt its death- 30 be

s by ana ° emnation
blow to this as to so many other spurious pretensions. As a rule, Roman of the
Catholics and Reformers were equally strong in their condemnation of its episile.
worthlessness. The language of Erasmus more especially is worth quoting
for its own sake, and must not be diluted by translation : .

‘Nihil habet Pauli praeter voculas aliquot ex caeteris ejus epistolis Strictures
mendicatas...... Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus effingere. Tonat, of Eras-
fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus. At haec, praeterquam quod brevis- ™"*-
sima est, quam friget, quam jacet!...Quanquam quid attinet argumentari ?

Legat, qui volet, epistolam......Nullum argumentum efficacius persuaserit
eam non esse Pauli quam ipsa epistola. Et si quid mihi naris est, ejus-
dem est opificis qui naeniis suis omnium veterum theologorum omnia
scripta contaminavit, conspurcavit, perdidit, ac praecipue ejus qui prae

et ee ene i) Te.

BENGE «

caeteris indignus erat ea contumelia, nempe D. Hieronymi'.’

1 On Col. iv. 16. Erasmus is too
hard upon the writer of this letter,
when he charges him with such a mass
of forgeries. He does not explain how

this hypothesis is consistent with the
condemnation of the Epistle to the La-
odiceans in Hieron. Vir. Ill. 5 (quoted
above p. 293).

300

Excep-
tions.

Pretorius.

Stapleton.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

But some eccentric spirits on both sides were still found to maintain its
genuineness. Thus on the one hand the Lutheran Steph. Preetorius prefaces
his edition of this epistle (A.D. 1595) with the statement that he ‘restores
it to the Christian Church’; he gives his opinion that it was written ‘ either
by the Apostle himself or by some otlier Apostolic man’: he declares
that to himself it is ‘redolent of the spirit and grace of the most divine
Paul’; and he recommends younger teachers of the Gospel to ‘try their
strength in explaining it’, that thus ‘accustoming themselves gradually
to the Apostolic doctrine they may extract thence a flavour sweeter than
ambrosia and nectar!’ On the other hand the Jesuit Stapleton was
not less eager in his advocacy of this miserable cento. To him its genuine-
ness had a controversial value. Along with several other apocryphal
writings which he accepted in like manner, it was important in his eyes
as showing that the Church had authority to exclude even Apostolic
writings from the Canon, if she judged fit, But such phenomena were
quite abnormal. The dawn of the Reformation epoch had effectually
scared away this ghost of a Pauline epistle, which (we may confidently
hope) has been laid for ever and will not again be suffered to haunt the
mind of the Church.

1 Pauli Apostoli ad Laodicenses
Epistola, Latine et Germanice, Ham-
burg. 1595, of which the preface is
given in Fabricius Cod. Apocr. Nov.
Test. 11. p. 867. It is curious that
the only two arguments against its
genuineness which he thinks worthy
of notice are (1) Its brevity; which he
answers by appealing to the Epistle to
Philemon; and (2) Its recommenda-
tion of works (‘quod scripsit opera
esse facienda quae sunt salutis aeter-
nae’); which he explains to refer to

works that proceed of faith.

2 See Bp. Davenant on Col. iv. 16:
‘Detestanda Stapletonis opinio, qui
ipsius Pauli epistolam esse statuit,
quam omnes patres ut adulterinam et
insulsam repudiarunt; nec sanior con-
clusio, quam inde deducere voluit,
posse nimirum ecclesiam germanam
et veram apostoli Pauli epistolam
pro sua authoritate e Canone exclu-
dere’. So also Whitaker Disputation
on Scripture passim (see the references
given above, p. 275, note 3).

AT ne ee ee ee ees

wh, ales

a a see ric :
Od Fe ie Aieotes
AHL ie

} i “hy

ee +

¥
>
7
B
:
-

INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE.

HE Epistle to Philemon holds a unique place among tho Unique
Apostle’s writings. It is the only strictly private letter gee “

which has been preserved. The Pastoral Epistles indeed are Piste.
addressed to individuals, but they discuss important matters
of Church discipline and government. Evidently they. were
intended to be read by others besides those to whom they
are immediately addressed. On the other hand the ‘letter
before us does not once touch upon any question of public
interest. It is addressed apparently to a layman. It is wholly
occupied with an incident of domestic life. The occasion
which called it forth was altogether common-place. It is
only one sample of numberless letters which must have been
written to his many friends and disciples by one of St Paul’s
eager temperament and warm affections, in the course of a
long and chequered life. Yet to ourselves this fragment, which
has been rescued, we know not how, from the wreck of a large Its value.
and varied correspondence, is infinitely precious, Nowhere is
the social influence of the Gospel more strikingly exerted ;
nowhere does the nobility of the Apostle’s character receive
a more vivid illustration than in this accidental pleading on
behalf of a runaway slave.

The letter introduces us to an ordinary household in a The
persons

small town in Phrygia. Four members of it are mentioned saarossed.

by name, the father, the mother, the son, and the slave,
1. The head of the family bears a name which, for good or r. Phile-
for evil, was not unknown in connexion with Phrygian story.”

304

Occur-
rence of
the name
in Phry-
gia.

This Phi-
lemon a
Colossian

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

The legend of Philemon and Baucis, the aged peasants who
entertained not angels but gods unawares, and were rewarded
by their divine guests for their homely hospitality and their
conjugal love’, is one of the most attractive in Greek mytho-
logy, and contrasts favourably with many a revolting tale in
which the powers of Olympus are represented as visiting this
lower earth. It has a special interest too for the Apostolic
history, because it suggests an explanation of the scene at
Lystra, when the barbarians would have sacrificed to the
Apostles, imagining that the same two gods, Zeus and Hermes,
had once again deigned to visit, in the likeness of men, those
regions which they had graced of old by their presence*, Again,
in historical times we read of one Philemon who obtained an
unenviable notoriety at Athens by assuming the rights of
Athenian citizenship, though a Phrygian and apparently a
slave*®, Otherwise the name is not distinctively Phrygian. It
does not occur with any special frequency in the inscriptions
belonging to this country ; and though several persons bearing
this name rose to eminence in literary history, not one, so far
as we know, was a Phrygian.

The Philemon with whom we are concerned was a native,
or at least an inhabitant, of Colosse. This appears from the
fact that his slave is mentioned as belonging to that place. It
may be added also, in confirmation of this view, that in one of
two epistles written and despatched at the same time St Paul

1 Ovid. Met. vii. 626 sq. ‘Jupiter bant’. The familiarity with this

huc, specie mortali, cumque parente
Venit Atlantiades positis caducifer alis’
etc.

2 Acts xiv. 11 of Geol duorwOévres
dvOpeémots xaréBnoav mpods yuas K.T.d-
There are two points worth observing
in the Phrygian legend, as illustrating
the Apostolic history. (1) It is a
miracle, which opens the eyes of the
peasant couple to the divinity of their
guests thus disguised; (2) The im-
mediate effect of this miracle is their
attempt to sacrifice to their divine
visitors, ‘dis hospitibus mactare para-

beautiful story may have suggested to
the barbarians of Lystra, whose ‘ Ly-
caonian speech’ was not improbably
a dialect of Phrygian, that the same
two gods, Zeus and Hermes, had again
visited this region on an errand at
once of beneficence and of vengeance,
while at the same time it would prompt
them to conciliate the deities by a
similar mode of propitiation, 70cdov
Oveuw.

3 Aristoph. Av. 762 ef 5& ruyxdvee
Tis dv Ppvé...ppvylros Sous évOds’ ora,
Tov Piryuovos yévous.

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

announces the restoration of Onesimus to his master, while in
the other he speaks of this same person as revisiting Colossz*.
On the other hand it would not be safe to lay any stress on
the statement of Theodoret that Philemon’s house was still
standing at Colosse when he wrote’, for traditions of this kind
have seldom any historical worth.

Philemon had been converted by St Paul himself®.

lessons in the Gospel, we do not know: but the Apostle’s long
residence at Ephesus naturally suggests itself as the period
when he was most likely to have become acquainted with a

citizen of Colosse ‘.

305

At converted
‘ : : t
what time or under what circumstances he received his first pul,

Philemon proved not unworthy of his spiritual parentage, His evan-

Though to Epaphras belongs the chief glory of preaching the 4

Gospel at Colosse*®, his labours were well seconded by Phi-
lemon. The title of ‘fellow-labourer,’ conferred upon him by
the Apostle °, is a noble testimony to his evangelical zeal. Like
Nymphas in the neighbouring Church of Laodicea’, Philemon
had placed his house at the disposal of the Christians at Colossee
for their religious and social gatherings’, Like Gaius’, to
whom the only other private letter in the Apostolic Canon is
addressed”, he was generous in his hospitalities.

1 Compare Col. jv. 9 with Philem.
II 8q.

2 Theodoret in his preface to the
epistle says wodw 6é elxe [6 Pirjuwr]
Tas Koddooas cat % oixia 6 avdrot
péxpt Tod wapdyros peuévnxe. This is
generally taken to mean that Phile-
mon’s house was still standing, when
Theodoret wrote. This may be the
correct interpretation, but the language
is not quite explicit,

3 ver. 19.

4 See above, p. 30 sq.

5 See above, p. 31 sq.

6 ver. I cuvepy@ uar.

7 Col. iv. 15.

8 ver. 2 TH Kat’ olxdy cov éxxAnolg.
The Greek commentators, Chrysostom
and Theodoret, suppose that St. Paul

COL.

designates Philemon’s own family (in-
cluding his slaves) by this honourable
title of éxxXynolqg, in order to interest
them in his petition. This is plainly
wrong. See the note on Col. iv. 15.

9 3 Joh. 5 sq.

10 I take the view that the xvupla
addressed in the Second Epistle of St
John is some church personified, as
indeed the whole tenour of the epistle
seems to imply: see esp. vv. 4, 7 8q.
The salutation to the ‘elect lady’
(ver. r) from her ‘elect sister’ (ver.
15) will then be a greeting sent to
one church from another; just as in
1 Peter the letter is addressed at the
outset éxXexrots IIévrov x.7.d. (i. 1) and
contains at the close a salutation from
# év BaBudGre cuvex\exT7 (V. 13).

20

All those Pa hea
° . F Pa osplta-
with whom he came in contact spoke with gratitude of his i c

306

dlegenaaty kindly attentions’.
tain knowledge.

martyr-
dom.

2. Apphia
his wife.

A strictly
Phrygian
name,

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

Of his subsequent career we have no cer-
Legendary story indeed promotes him to the
bishopric of Colossze*, and records how he was martyred in his
native city under Nero®*. But this tradition or fiction is not
entitled to any credit. All that we really know of Philemon is
containéd within this epistle itself.

2. Itisasafe inference from the connexion of the names
that Apphia was the wife of Philemon*. The commentators
assume without misgiving that we have here the familiar
Roman name Appia, though they do not explain the intrusion
of the aspirate®. This seems to be a mistake. The word occurs
very frequently on Phrygian inscriptions as a proper name, and
is doubtless of native origin. At Aphrodisias and Philadelphia,
at Eumenia and Apamea Cibotus, at Stratonicea, at Philo-
melium, at Aizani and Cotizum and Doryleum, at almost all
the towns far and near, which were either Phrygian or subject
to Phrygian influences, and in which any fair number of inscrip-
tions has been preserved, the name is found. If no example
has been discovered at Colossz itself, we must remember that

not a single proper name has been preserved on any monu-

mental inscription at this place.
*; more rarely Aphia, which is perhaps

Apphia or Aphphia

PVC Be ye

2 Apost. Const. vii. 46 ris 5é év
Spuyla Aaodixelas [érloxoros]”Apyxermos,
Koraccadwy 5¢ Pirjuwv, Bepolas 5¢ rs
kata Maxedoviay ’Ovnoimos 6 Pidnuovos.
The Greek Menaea however make Phi-
lemon bishop of Gaza; see Tillemont
I. p. 574, note Ixvi.

3 See Tillemont 1. pp. 290, 574, for
the references.

4 Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3814 Netk-
avipos kat ’Addla yuvy avrov. In the
following inscriptions also a wife bear-
ing the name Apphia (Aphphia, Aphia)
or Apphion (Aphphion, Aphion) is
mentioned in connexion with her hus-
band ; 2720, 2782, 2836, 3446, 2775
b, c, d, 2837 b, 3849, 3902 m, 3962,
4141, 4277; 4321 f, 3846 z7, ete.

. Renan (Saint Paul p. 360) says
‘Appia, diaconesse de cette ville.’

It is generally written either

Like other direct statements of this
same writer, as for instance that the
Colossians sent a deputation to St
Paul (L’Antéchrist p. go), this asser-
tion rests on no authority.

5 They speak of "Ardila as a softened
form of the Latin Appia, and quote
Acts xxviii. 13, where however the form
is ’Amrmiov. EKven Ewald writes the
word Appia.

S ’Amdla, no. 2782, 2835, 2950,
3432, 3446, 2775 b, ¢, d, 2837 b, 3902
Mm, 3962, 4124, 4145: "Addia, no. 3814,
4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3827 1, 3846 z,
3846 217, So far as I could trace any
law, the form ’A¢¢la is preferred in
the northern and more distant towns
like Aizani and Cotisum, while ’Ar¢ia
prevails in the southern towns in the
more immediate neighbourhood of
Colosse, such as Aphrodisias. This

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 307:

due merely to the carelessness of the stonecutters’, But, so far Its aftni-
as I have observed, it always preserves the aspirate. Its dimi-"*
nutive is Apphion or Aphphion or Aphion*. The allied form
Aphphias or Aphias, also a woman’s name, is found, though.

less commonly*; and we likewise frequently meet with the
shorter form Apphe or Aphphe*. The man’s name correspond-

ing to Apphia is Apphianos, but this is rare*. The root would

appear to be some Phrygian term of endearment or relation-

ship®. It occurs commonly in connexion with other Phrygian and ana-
names of a like stamp, more especially Ammia, which under-. °8"**
goes the same modifications of form, Amia, Ammias, Ammion

or Amion, Ammiane or Ammiana, with the corresponding

masculine Ammianos’,

accords with the evidence of our mss,
in which ’Ardia is the best supported
form, though ’A¢¢ia is found in some.
In Theod. Mops. (Cramer’s Cat. p. 105)
it becomes.’Audia by a common cor-
ruption; and Old Latin copies write
the dative Apphiadi. from the allied
form Apphias.

’ The most interesting of these in-
scriptions mentioning the name is no.
2782 at Aphrodisias, where there is a
notice of @d. ’Amrdgias dpxiepelas ’Acias,
pntpds Kal ddeAp|s Kal udupns cuvKry-
TUOV, pirodrp.oos K.T.A.

‘2 no. 2720, 3827.

2"Amgiov or *“Apdiov 2733, 2836,
3295, 3849, 3902 m, 4207; “Aduov,
3846 254 and *Ageov 3846 2°; and even
“Argew and "Addev, 3167, 3278. In
3902 m the mother’s name is ’Ar¢la
and the daughter’s”Amgiov.

3 *Adplas 3697, 3983; ’Adlas 3879. .

*"Adon 3816, 3390, 41433 “Aron
3796, 4122.

5 It is met with at the neighbouring
town of Hierapolis, in the form ’Ar-
glavos no. 3911. It also occurs on
coins of not very distant parts of Asia
Minor, being written either ’Ardlavos
or ’Ag¢dlavos ; Mionnet 111, p. 179, 184,
Iv, p. 65, 67, Suppl. vi. p. 293, VII.
p- 365.

§ Suidas "“Arda’ ddeXpys Kal dded-
pov vroxépicoua, and so Bekk. Anecd.
p- 441. Eustath. Il. p. 565 says argay

With these we may also compare

Tiv dedpyy “Arrixds pdvyn %. addedd7
elma av, kal mammay tov warépa pdvos
6 wats K.T.r., and he adds loréov 6é dri
éx ToD ws éppéOn drda ylverat Kal Td
amguov, vroKkbpisua ov épwuévns' tives
5¢ cal rd dda droxdpioud paow ’Arri-
xov. These words were found in writers
of Attic comedy (Pollux iii. 74 4 rapa
Tois véots Kwumdots drdia Kal drdlov.
kal dmpdpiv; comp. Xenarchus rods
pev yépovras bvras émixadovmevac marpl-
dua, Tos 8 drddpia, rods vewrépous,
Meineke Fragm. Com, 111. p. 617):
and doubtless they were heard com-
monly in Attic homes. But were they
not learnt in the nursery from Phry-
gian slaves? ’Amrddpioy appears in two
inscriptions almost as a proper name,
2637 Kravila arpdpiov, 3277 adrpdpiov
Aoddav}. In no. 4207 (at Telmissus)
we have ‘EXévyn 7) cat “Adduov, so that
it seems sometimes to have been em-
ployed side by side with a Greek name;
comp. no. 3912& Iamlas...6 kahovpevos
Awoyévys, quoted above, p. 48. This
will account for the frequency of the
names, Apphia, Apphion, etc. In
Theocr. xv. 13 we have dis, and in
Callim. Hym. Dian. 6 dma, as a term
of endearment applied to a father.

7 This appears from the fact that
Ammias and Ammianos appear some-
times as the names of mother and son
respectively in the same inscriptions;
e. g- 3846 25", 3847 k, 3882 i. "

20—2

308

Not to be
confused
with the
Latin
Appia.

Her share
in the
letter.

3. Archip-
pus, the
son.

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

Tatia, Tatias, Tation, Tatiane or Tatiana, Tatianos. Similar
too is the name Papias or Pappias, with the lengthened form
Papianos, to which corresponds the feminine Papiane*. So
again we have Nannas or Nanas, Nanna or Nana, with their
derivatives, in these Phrygian inscriptions*. There is a tend-
ency in some of the allied forms of Apphia or Aphphia to drop
the aspirate so that they are written with a pp, more especially
in Appe’®, but not in the word itself; nor have I observed con-
versely any disposition to write the Roman name Appia with an
aspirate, Apphia or Aphphia*, Even if such a disposition could
be proved, the main point for which I am contending can
hardly be questioned. With the overwhelming evidence of the
inscriptions before us, it is impossible to doubt that Apphia is
a native Phrygian name’.

Of this Phrygian matron we know nothing more than can
be learnt from this epistle. The tradition or fiction which
represents her as martyred together with her husband may be
safely disregarded. St Paul addresses her as a Christian *®.
Equally with her husband she had been aggrieved by the mis-
conduct of their slave Onesimus, and equally with him she
might interest herself in the penitent’s future well-being.

3. With less confidence, but still with a reasonable degree
of probability, we may infer that Archippus, who is likewise
mentioned in the opening salutation, was a son’ of Philemon

* In the Greek historians of Rome
for instance the personal name is al-

1 On the name Papias or Pappias
see above, p. 48.

2 See Boeckh Corp. Inscr. m1. p.
1085 for the names Navas, etc.

3 ‘We have not only the form “Army
several times (e.g. 3827 x, 3846 p,
3846 x, 3846 2%, etc.); but also”Ammns
3827 8, 3846 n, 3846 z?’, still as a
woman’s name. These all occur in
the same neighbourhood, at Cotisum
and Aizani. I have not noticed any
instance of this phenomenon in the
names Apphia, Apphicn; though pro-
bably, where Roman influences were
especially strong, there would be a
tendency totransform a Phrygian name
into a Roman, e. g. Apphia into Appia,
and Apphianus into Appianus,

ways “Ammos and the road ’Armla; so
too in Acts xxviii. 15 if is ’Ammlov
Popov.

5 The point to be observed is that
examples of these names are thickest
in the heart of Phrygia, that they di-
minish in frequency as Phrygian in-
fluence becomes weaker, and that they
almost, though not entirely, disappear
in other parts of the Greek and Roman
world,

- 6 ver. 2 77 déekp7. See the note,

7 So Theodore of Mopsuestia. But
Chrysostom érepov riva tows plrov, and
Theodoret 6 6é “Apxermos Thy dibacka-
Alay abrav éremlorevro.

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 309

and Apphia. The inscriptions do not exhibit the name in

any such frequency, either in Phrygia or in the surrounding dis-

tricts, as to suggest that it was characteristic of these parts’.

| Our Archippus held some important office in the Church’; His office
but what this was, we are not told. St Paul speaks of it as

a ‘ministry’ (Scaxovia). Some have interpreted the term tech-

nically as signifying the diaconate; but St Paul's emphatic
message seems to imply a more important position than this.

Others again suppose that he succeeded Epaphras as bishop of
Colossee, when Epaphras left his native city to jom the Apostle

at Rome*; but the assumption of a regular and continuous
episcopate in such a place as Colosse at this date seems to
involve an anachronism. More probable than either is the
hypothesis which makes him a presbyter. Or perhaps he held

a missionary charge, and belonged to the order of ‘ evangelists *’
Another question too arises respecting Archippus. Where

was he exercising this ministry, whatever it may have been ?

At Colosse, or at Laodicea? His connexion with Philemon and abode,
would suggest the former place. But in the Epistle to the
Colossians his name is mentioned immediately after the salu-

tation to the Laodiceans and the directions affecting that
Church; and this fact seems to connect him with Laodicea. Laodicea,
On the whole this appears to be the more probable solution ® eg
Laodicea was within walking distance of Colosse® Archippus ©!0S%®-
must have been in constant communication with his parents,

who lived there; and it was therefore quite natural that,
writing to the father and mother, St Paul should mention the

son’s name also in the opening address, though he was not on

the spot. An early tradition, if it be not a critical inference

- ae 4 “i

ee, a

1 It occurs in two Smyrnean in-
scriptions, NO. 3143, 3224.

2 Col. iv. 27 BAéwe riv Sitaxoviay jv
mapéraBes év Kupiy, va airy rXypots.

3 So the Ambrosian Hilary on Col.
iv. 17-

4 phes: iv. rr bears testimony to
the existence of the office of evangelist
at this date.

5It is adopted by Theodore of

Mopsuestia. On the other hand Theo-
doret argues against this view on
critical grounds; ries épacay roirov
Aaodixelas yeyerjcOa. SiddoKxadov, adr’
% mpds Dirijwova émioroX} dddoKe cs
év Kodacoats ovros @xet* TH yap Pi-
Ajpove Kal Todroy cuvrarrec: but he
does not allege any traditional support,
for his own: opinion.
6 See above, pp. 2, 15.

310

His career. .

4. Onesi-
mus.

A servile
name.

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

from the allusion in the Colossian letter, makes him bishop not
of Colossz, but of Laodicea’.

Of the apprehensions which the Apostle seems to have
entertained respecting Archippus, I have already spoken*®. It
is not improbable that they were suggested by his youth and
St Paul here addresses him as his ‘fellow-
soldier *,” but we are not informed on what spiritual campaigns
they had served in company. Of his subsequent career we
have no trustworthy evidence.
having suffered martyrdom at Colosse with his father and
mother.

4. But far more important to the history of Christianity
than the parents or the son of the family, is the servant. The
name Onesimus was very commonly borne by slaves. Like
other words signifying utility, worth, and so forth, it naturally
lent itself to this purpose*. Accordingly the inscriptions offer

inexperience.

Tradition represents him as

a very large number of examples in which it appears as the
name of some slave or freedman®; and even where this is
not the case, the accompaniments frequently show that the
person was of servile descent, though he might never himself
have been a slave®, Indeed it occurs more than once as a

fictitious name for a slave’, a fact which points significantly to

1 Apost. Const. vii. 46 quoted above,
p- 306, note 1.

2 See p. 42.

3 ver. 2 7G ouveTparlTy nuor.
the note.

4 e.g, Chresimus, Chrestus, One-
siphorus, Symphorus, Carpus, etc. So
too the corresponding female names
Onesime,Chreste,Sympherusa,etc.: but
more commonly the women’s names
are of a different cast of meaning,
Arescusa, Prepusa, Terpusa, Thallusa,
Tryphosa, ete.

5 e.g. in the Corp. Inser. Lat. 11.
Pp. 223, no. 2146, Pp. 359, N0. 2723, p.
986, no. 6107 (where it is spelled Ho-
nesimus); and in Muratori, cc. 6,
DEXIX. 5, CMLXVIII. 4, MIII. 2, MDXYVIII. 2,
MDXXIII. 4, MDLI. 9, MDLXXI. 5, MDLXXV.
I, MDxcII, 8, MDXCVI. 7, MDCVI. 2, MDCX.
19, MDCXIV. 17, 39; and the corre-

See

sponding female name Onesime in
MCCXXXIX. 12, MDXLVI. 6, MDCXII. 9.
A more diligent search than I have
made would probably increase the
number of examples very largely.

6 e.g. Corp. Inscr, Lat. iI. p. 238,
no. 1467, D. M. M. AVR . ONESIMO . CAB-
PION . AVG . LIB. TABVL. FILIO. In
the next generation any direct notice
of servile origin would disappear; but
the names very often indicate it. It
need not however necessarily denote
low extraction: see e.g. Liv. xliv. 16.

7 Menander Inc. 312 (Meineke Fragm.
Com. Iv. p. 300), where the ’Ovnoimos
addressed is a slave, as appears from
the mention of his rpd¢ipos, i. e. mas-
ter; Galen de Opt. Doctr. 1 (I. p. 41)

ed. Kiihn), where there is a reference

to a work of Phavorinus in which was
introduced one Onesimus 6 II\ovrapxou

aaa

Sa

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

the social condition naturally suggested by it. In the inscrip-

tions of proconsular Asia it is found’; but no stress can be laid
on this coincidence, for its occurrence as a proper name was.

doubtless coextensive with the use of the Greek language.
More important is the fact that in the early history of Christi-

311

anity it attains some eminence in this region. One Onesimus Its pro-

is bishop of Ephesus in the first years of the second century,
when Ignatius passes through Asia Minor on his way to

minence

among the
Christians
of procon-

martyrdom, and is mentioned by the saint in terms of warm sular Asia.

affection and respect*, Another, apparently an influential
layman, about half a century later urges Melito bishop of
Sardis to compile a volume of extracts from the Scriptures;
and to him this father dedicates the work when completed *.
Thus it would appear that the memory of the Colossian
slave had invested the name with a special popularity among
Christians in this district. |

Onesimus represented the least respectable type of the Position

least respectable class in the social scale. He was regarded by

taken philosophy at her word. He had done what a chattel or
an implement might be expected to do, if endued with life and
intelligence. He was treated by the law as having no rights’;
and he had carried the principles of the law to their logical
consequences. He had declined to entertain any responsibilities.

Soddos ’Eaixryntyw Siareyouevos; Anthol. cOa; see also §§ 2, 5, 6.
Graec.u, p. 161, where the context shows 3 Melito in Euseb. H. E. iv. 26

that the person addressed as Onesimus
is a slave; ib. 1. p. 482, where the
master, leaving legacies to his servants,
says ’Ovnotmos elkoor wévre | pas éxérw
Ados 5’ etkooe prds éxérw" | revrnKovra
Zupos’ Xuvérn Séxa, x.7.A. See also
the use of the name in the Latin play
quoted Suet. Galb. 13 (according to one
reading).

1 It occurs as near to Colosse as
Aphrodisias; Boeckh C. I. no. 2743.

2 Ign. Ephes. 1 év ’Ovyciuw ro év
ayary ddunyjrw vay 5é év capt ém-
oKoTw...evdoynTos 6 xXapicduevos vulv
dilos ovaw rowtrov émicxowov KEKTA-

MeNrwv ’Ovyciuw rg adekp@ xalpev.
*Eretdn roddadkis Héiwoas K.T.r.

4 Aristot. Pol. i. 4 (p. 1253) 6 dovdos
xrjud Te €upuxov, Eth. Nic. viii. 13 (p.
1161) 6 yap Sovdros Eupuxov Boyavor, Td
5 bpyavov dyuyos SovdAos. See also the
classification of ‘implements’ in Varro,
de Re rust. 1. 17. 1 ‘ Instrumenti genus
vocale et semivocale et mutum: vocale,
in quo sunt servi; semivocale, in quo
boves; mutum, in quo plaustra.’ |

5 Dig. iv. 5 ‘Servile caput nullum
jus habet’ (Paulus); 7b. 1. 17 ‘In per-
sonam servilem nulla cadit obligatio’
(Ulpianus).

and con-
duct of

_ philosophers as a ‘live chattel,’ a ‘live implement®’; and he had Onesimus.

His en-
counter
with St
Paul in
Rome

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

There was absolutely nothing to recommend him. He was
a slave, and what was worse, a Phrygian slave; and he had
confirmed the popular estimate of his class* and nation* by
his own conduct. He was a thief and arunaway. His offence.
did not differ in any way, so far as we know, from the vulgar.
type of slavish offences. He seems to have done just what
the representative slave in the Roman comedy threatens to do,
when he gets into trouble. He had ‘packed up some goods
and taken to his heels*’ Rome was the natural cesspool for
these offscourings of humanity‘. In the thronging crowds of
the metropolis was his best hope of secresy. In the dregs of
the city rabble he would find the society of congenial spirits.
But at Rome the Apostle spread his net for him, and he
was caught in its meshes. How he first came in contact with
the imprisoned missionary we can only conjecture. Was it an
accidental encounter with his fellow-townsman Epaphras in the
streets of Rome which led to the interview? Was it the
pressure of want which induced him to seek alms from one
whose large-hearted charity must have been a household word
in his master’s family? Or did the memory of solemn words,
which he had chanced to overhear at those weekly gather-
ings in the upper chamber at Colosse, haunt him in his
loneliness, till, yielding to the fascination, he was constrained
to unburden himself to the one man who could soothe his

1 Plaut. Pseud. 1. 2, 6 ‘Ubi data
occasiost, rape, clepe, tene, harpaga,
bibe, es, fuge; hoc eorum opust’; Ovid
Amor. i. 15. 17 ‘Dum fallax servus.’

2 Cicero speaks thus of Phrygia and
theneighbouring districts; pro Flacc. 27
‘Utrum igitur nostrum est an vestrum
hoe proverbium Phrygem plagis fiert
solere meliorem? Quid de tota Caria?
Nonne hoc vestra voce vulgatum est;
si quid cum periculo experiri velis, in
Care id potissimum esse faciendum ?
Quid porro in Graeco sermone tam
tritum est, quam si quis despicatui
ducitur, ut Mysorum ultimus esse di-
catur ? Nam quid ego dicam de Lydia?
Quis unquam Graecus comoediam scrip-
sit in qua servus primarum partium

non lLydus esset’: comp. Alciphr.
Epist. iii. 38 Bpbya olkérnv éxw tovn-
pov x.7.r.: Apollod. Com. (Meineke,
Iv. Pp. 451) od mavraxot pvt elu
x.7.r. This last passage refers to the
cowardice with which, besides all their
other bad qualities, the Phrygians were
credited: comp. Anon. Com. (ib. 1Vv.
Pp. 652) decdbrepov Aaye Hpvyds, Tertull.
de Anim. 20 ‘Comici Phrygas timidos
illudunt’: see Ribbeck Com. Lat. p.
106.

3 Ter. Phorm. i. 4. 13 ‘aliquid con-
vasassem, atque hinc me protinam
conjicerem in pedes.’

* Sall. Cat. xxxvii. 5 ‘Romam sicuti
in sentinam confiuxerant’: comp. Tac.
Ann, XV. 44.

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 313

terrors and satisfy his yearnings? Whatever motive may
have drawn him to the Apostle’s side—whether the pangs
of hunger or the gnawings of conscience—when he was once
within the range of attraction, he could not escape. He and con-
listened, was impressed, was convinced, was baptized. The“ ”
slave of Philemon became the freedman of Christ. St Paul
found not only a sincere convert, but a devoted friend, in his
latest son in the faith. Aristotle had said that there ought
not to be, and could not be, any friendship with a slave qua
slave, though there might be qua man’; and others had held
still stronger language to the same effect. The Apostle did
not recognise the philosopher’s subtle distinction. For him
the conventional barrier between slave and free had altogether
vanished before the dissolving presence of an eternal verity *.
He found in Onesimus something more than a slave, a beloved St Paul’s
brother, both as a slave and as a man, ‘both in the flesh and in Prange
the Lord*’ The great capacity for good which appears in the
typical slave of Greek and Roman fiction, notwithstanding all
the fraud and profligacy overlying it, was evoked and developed
here by the inspiration of a new faith and the incentive of a
new hope. The genial, affectionate, winning disposition, puri-
fied and elevated by a higher knowledge, had found its proper
scope. Altogether this new friendship was a solace and a
strength to the Apostle in his weary captivity, which he could
ill afford to forego. To take away Onesimus was to tear out
Paul's heart *,
But there was an imperious demand for the sacrifice. One- Necessity
simus had repented, but he had not made restitution. He f" b's

return
could only do this by submitting again to the servitude from

1 1 Cor, vii. 22. I. p. 2 sq. (ed. 2, 1854) with the

2 Eth. Nic. viii, 13 (p. 1161) gidla
& odk éore mpds Ta Ayuxa ovdé Sixacov*
GAN’ ob5e wpds Urrov y Body, ovdé mpds
SovAov 7 SovAos* obdey yap Kowdy éoriv*
6 yap Soddos eupuxov Bpyavov, rd 8’
Bpyavov &yuxos Sovdos* Fj ev ovv SoiXos,
ov éote pirtla pds abrév, } 5’ av@pwiros
x.7.. On the views of Aristotle re-
specting slavery see Becker’s Charikles

editor K. F. Hermann’s references to
the literature of the subject, p. 5.

3 x Cor. vii. 21 sq., Gal. iii, 28, Col.
iii, rr. With this contrast the ex-
pression attributed to a speaker in
Macrob. Sat. i. 11 ‘quasi vero curent
divina de servis.’

4 Philem, 16.

5 ver. 12.

314

notwith-
standing
the risk.

Mediation
of Tychi-
cus

'supple-
mented
by the
Apostle’s
letter.

Analysis
of the
letter.

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

which he had escaped. Philemon must be made to feel that
when Onesimus was gained for Christ, he was regained for his
old master also. But if the claim of duty demanded a great
sacrifice from Paul, it demanded a greater still from Onesimus.
By returning he would place himself entirely at the mercy of the
master whom he had wronged. Roman law, more cruel than
Athenian, practically imposed no limits to the power of the
master over his slave’. The alternative of life or death rested
solely with Philemon, and slaves were constantly crucified for
far lighter offences than his*. A thief and a runaway, he had
no claim to forgiveness.

A. favourable opportunity occurred for restoring Onesimus
to his master. Tychicus, as the bearer of letters from the
Apostle to Laodicea and Colossee, had occasion to visit those
parts. He might undertake the office of mediator, and plead
the cause of the penitent slave with the offended master.
Under his shelter Onesimus would be safer than if he en-
countered Philemon alone. But St Paul is not satisfied with
this precaution. He will with his own hand write a few words
of eager affectionate entreaty, identifying himself with the
cause of Onesimus. So he takes up his pen.

After the opening salutation to Philemon and the members
of his family, he expresses his thankfulness for the report which
has reached his ears of his friend’s charitable deeds. It is a
great joy and encouragement to the Apostle that so many
brethren have had cause to bless his name. This wide-spread
reputation for kindliness emboldens him to reveal his object in
Though he has a right to command, he prefers rather
He has a petition to prefer on behalf of a child of

writing.
to entreat.

1 Dig. i. 6 ‘In potestate sunt servi
dominorum; quae quidem potestas
juris gentium est: nam apud omnes
peraeque gentes animadvertere possu-
mus dominis in servos vitae necisque
potestatem fuisse.’ Comp. Senec. de
Clem. i. 18 ‘Cum in servum omnia
liceant.’

2 So the mistress in Juv. Sat. vi.
219 Sq. ‘Pone crucem servo. Meruit

quo crimine seryus supplicium? quis
testis adest ? quis detulit?... O demens,
ita servus homo est? nil fecerit, esto.
Hoe volo, sic jubeo, etc.’ Compare
the words of the slave in Plautus Mil.
Glor. ii, 4. 19 ‘Noli minitari: scio
crucem futuram mihi sepulerum: Ibi
mei sunt majores siti, pater, avos,
proayos, abavos.’

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 315

his own. This is none other than Onesimus, whom Philemon Analysis
will remember only as a worthless creature, altogether untrue ii
to his name, but who now is a reformed man. He would have
wished to detain Onesimus, for he can ill afford to dispense
with his loving services. Indeed Philemon would doubtless have
been glad thus to minister vicariously to the Apostle’s wants,
But a -benefit which wears the appearance of being forced,
whether truly so or not, loses all its value, and therefore he
sends him back. Nay, there may have been in this desertion a
Divine providence which it would ill become him Paul to thwart,
Onesimus may have been withheld from Philemon for a time,
that he might be restored to him for ever. He may have left as
a slave, that he might return more than a slave. To others—
to the Apostle himself especially—he is now a dearly beloved
brother. Must he not be this and more than this to Philemon,
whether in earthly things or in heavenly things? He therefore
begs Philemon to receive Onesimus as he would receive himself.

As for any injury that he may have done, as for any money that
he may owe, the Apostle makes himself responsible for this.
The present letter may be accepted as a bond, a security for
repayment. Yet at the same time he cannot refrain from
reminding Philemon that he might fairly claim the remission of
so small an amount. Does not his friend owe to him his own
soul besides? Yes, he has a right to look for some filial grati-
tude and duty from one to whom he stands in the relation of a
spiritual father. Philemon will surely not refuse him this com-
fort in his many trials. He writes in the full confidence that
he will be obeyed; he is quite sure that his friend will do more
| than is asked of him. At the same time he trusts to see him
before very long, and to talk over this and other matters.
Philemon may provide him a lodging: for he hopes through
their prayers that he may be liberated, and given back to them.
Then follow the salutations, and the letter ends with the
Apostle’s benediction.
Of the result of this appeal we have no certain knowledge. Result

It is reasonable to suppose however that Philemon would not alt

316 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

belie the Apostle’s hopes; that he would receive the slave as a
brother ; that he would even go beyond the express terms of
the Apostle’s petition, and emancipate the penitent. But all
this is a mere conjecture. One tradition makes Onesimus bishop
of Ephesus’. But this obviously arises from a confusion with
Legendary his namesake, who lived about half a century later*, Another
Bistrys story points to Bercea in Macedonia as his see*. This is at least
free from the suspicion of having been suggested by any notice
in the Apostolic writings: but the authority on which it rests
does not entitle it to much credit. The legend of his missionary
labours in Spain and of his martyrdom at Rome may have been
built on the hypothesis of his continuing in the Apostle’s
company, following in the Apostle’s footsteps, and sharing the
Apostle’s fate. Another story, which gives a circumstantial
account of his martyrdom at Puteoli, seems to confuse him with
a namesake who suffered, or was related to have suffered, in the

Decian persecution *. .
Deprecia- The estimate formed of this epistle at various epochs has
Se the differed widely. In the fourth century there was a strong bias
in early against it. The ‘spirit of the age’ had no sympathy with either
"the subject or the handling. Like the spirit of more than one
later age, it was enamoured of its own narrowness, which it
mistook for largeness of view, and it could not condescend to
such trivialities as were here offered to it. Its maxim seemed
to be De minimis non curat evangelium. Of what account was
the fate of a single insignificant slave, long since dead and gone,
to those before whose eyes the battle of the creeds was still
raging? This letter taught them nothing about questions of
theological interest, nothing about matters of ecelesiastical disci-

1 See Acta Sanct. Boil. xvi Febr. may be intended. But on the other
(11. p. 857 sq. ed. nov.) for the autho- hand the language of Ignatius (Ephes.
rities, if they deserve the name. 1 sq.) leaves the impression that he is

2 If we take the earlier date of the speaking of a person comparatively
Epistles of St Ignatius, a.p. 107, we young and untried in office.

get an interval of 44 years between the 3 Apost. Const. Vii. 46, quoted above,
Onesimus of St Paul and the Onesimus_p. 206, note 1.
of Ignatius. It is not altogether impos- * For the legend compare Act.

sible therefore that the same person Sanct.1.c¢, p. 858 sq. See also the

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

pline; and therefore they would have none of it. They denied
that it had been written by St Paul. It mattered nothing to
them that the Church from the earliest ages had accepted it as
genuine, that even the remorseless ‘higher criticism’ of a
Marcion had not ventured to lay hands on it*. It was wholly
unworthy of the Apostle. If written by him, they contended,
it must have been written when he was not under the influence

of the Spirit: its contents were tg thie so unedifying. We Reply

may infer from the replies of Jerome’, of Chrysostom *, and of
Theodore of Mopsuestia‘, that they felt themselves to be
stemming a fierce current of prejudice which had set in this
direction. But they were strong in the excellence of their
cause, and they nobly vindicated this epistle against its

assailants.

317

pedis

In modern times there has been no disposition to under-rate High es

its value.

Even Luther and Calvin, whose bias tended to the

timate of
modern

depreciation of the ethical as compared with the doctrinal 7"
portions of the scriptures, show a true appreciation of its beauty

and significance. ‘This epistle’, writes Luther,

right noble lovely example of Christian love. Here we see how

note on the Ignatian Mart. Rom. to.

1 Hieron. Comm. in Philem. praef.
VII. p. 743 ‘Pauli esse epistolam ad
Philemonem saltem Marcione auctore
doceantur : qui, quum caeteras epistolas
ejusdem vel non susceperit vel quaedam
in his mutaverit atque corroserit, in
hance solam manus non est ausus mit-
tere, quia sua illam brevitas defende-
bat.’ St Jerome hag in his mind
Tertullian adv. Mare. v. 21 ‘Soli huic
epistolae brevitas sua profuit, ut fal-
sarias manus Marcionis evaderet.’

7 ib. p. 742 Sq. ‘Qui nolunt inter
epistolas Pauli eam recipere quae ad
Philemonem scribitur, aiunt non sem-
per apostolum nec omnia Christo in se
loquente dixisse, quia nec humana
imbecillitas unum tenorem Sancti Spi-
ritusferre potuisset etc...His et caeteris
istius modi. volunt aut epistolam non
esse Pauli quae ad Philemonem scri-
bitur aut, etiamsi Pauli sit, nihil ha-

bere quod aedificare nos possit etc....
sed mihi videntur, dum epistolam sim-
plicitatis arguunt, suam imperitiam
prodere, non intelligentes quid in sin-
gulis sermonibus virtutis et sapientiae
lateat.’

3 Argum. in Philem. adr’ éredy rivés
pact repirrov elvat Td Kal ravrny mpoc-
Keto bas rhy éxicronijy, elye brép mpdypa-
ToS Mikpov Hélwoev, Urép évds avdpbs, pa-
Oérwoav doo Tada éykarovory bre puplwv
elciy éykAnparwy Géiot x.T.A., and he
goes on to discuss the value of the
epistle at some length.

4 Spicil. Solesm. 1. p. 149 ‘Quid
vero ex ea lucri possit acquiri, convenit
manifestius explicare, quia nec omni-
bus id existimo posse esse cognitum;
quod maxime heri jam ipse a nobis
disseri postulasti’; ib. p. 152 ‘De his
et nunc superius dixi, quod non omnes
similiter arbitror potius se (potuisse?)
prospicere,’

‘showeth a Luther.

Calvin.

Later
writers.

The epi-

stle com-

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

St Paul layeth himself out for poor Onesimus, and with all his

means pleadeth his cause with his master: and so setteth
himself as if he were Onesimus, and had himself done wrong
to Philemon. Even as Christ did for us with God the Father,
thus also doth St Paul for Onesimus with Philemon...We are all
his Onesimi, to my thinking. ‘Though he handleth a subject,

says Calvin, ‘which otherwise were low and mean, yet after his

manner he is borne up aloft unto God. With such modest
entreaty doth he humble himself on behalf of the lowest of men,
that scarce anywhere else is the gentleness of his spirit por-
trayed more truly to the life.” And the chorus of admiration
has been swelled by later voices from the most opposite quarters.
‘The single Epistle to Philemon,’ says one quoted by Bengel,
‘very far surpasses all the wisdom of the world’’ ‘ Nowhere,’
writes Ewald, ‘can the sensibility and warmth of a tender friend-
ship blend more beautifully with the loftier feeling of a
commanding spirit, a teacher and an Apostle, than in this
letter, at once so brief, and yet so surpassingly full and signifi-
cant®.’ ‘A true little chef d’ceuvre of the art of letter-writing;
exclaims M. Renan characteristically*. ‘We have here, writes
Sabatier, ‘only a few familiar lines, but so full of grace, of
salt, of serious and trustful affection, that this short epistle
gleams like a pearl of the most exquisite purity in the rich
treasure of the New Testament*’ Even Baur, while laying
violent hands upon it, is constrained to speak of this ‘little letter’
as ‘making such an agreeable impression by its attractive form’
and as penetrated ‘with the noblest Christian spirit *’

The Epistle to Philemon has more than once been com-

aed nike pared with the following letter addressed to a friend by une

a letter

of Pliny,

younger Pliny on a somewhat similar occasion °
Your freedman, with whom you had told me you were vexed,
came to me, and throwing himself down before me clung to my feet,

1 Franke Praef. N.T.Graec.p.26,27, Paul himself gave at the end of his

quoted by Bengel on Philem. 1. letter to the Colossians been better
2 Die Sendschreiben etc. p. 458. realised, 6 Adyos Uuav wdvrore év xdpiTt,
3 L Antéchrist p. 96. ddare nprumévos x.7.r. (Col. iv. 6).’

* L’Apétre Paul p. 194. He goes on 5 Paulus p. 476.
to say; ‘ Never has the precept which © Plin. Ep. ix.-21,

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 319

as if they had been yours. He was profuse in his tears and his
entreaties; he was profuse also in his silence. In short, he con-
vinced me of his penitence. I believe that he is indeed a reformed
character, because he feels that he has done wrong. You are angry,
I know ; and you have reason to be angry, this also I know: but
mercy wins the highest praise just when there is the most righteous
cause for anger. You loved the man, and, I hope, will continue to
love him: meanwhile it is enough, that you should allow yourself
to yield to his prayers. You may be angry again, if he deserves it ;
and in this you will be the more readily pardoned if you yield now,
Concede something to his youth, something to his tears, something
to your own indulgent disposition, Do not torture him, lest you
torture yourself at the same time. For it 7s torture to you, when one
of your gentle temper is angry. I am afraid lest I should appear not
to ask but to compel, if I should add my prayers to his. Yet I will
add them the more fully and unreservedly, because I scolded the man
himself with sharpness and severity; for I threatened him straitly
that I would never ask you again. This I said to him, for it was
necessary to alarm him ; but I do not use the same language to you.
For perchance I shall ask again, and shall be successful again; only
let my request be such, as it becomes me to prefer and you to grant.
Farewell.
The younger Pliny is the noblest type of a true Roman ag an ex.

gentleman, and this touching letter needs no words of praise. rsa
Yet, if purity of diction be excepted, there will hardly be any racter.
difference of opinion in awarding the palm to the Christian
Apostle. As an expression of simple dignity, of refined courtesy,

of large sympathy, and of warm personal affection, the Epistle

to Philemon stands unrivalled. And its pre-eminence is the

more remarkable because in style it is exceptionally loose. It

owes nothing to the graces of rhetoric; its effect is due solely

to the spirit of the writer.

But the interest which attaches to this short epistle as tis higher
an expression of individual character is far less important than ™?e*
its significance as exhibiting the attitude of Christianity toa
widely spread and characteristic social institution of the ancient
world.

Slavery was practised by the Hebrews under the sanction
of the Mosaic law, not less than by the Greeks and Romans,

TE tet en, Le

A Ladi aie meal” ane Ae elt a a

ae — .

320

Slavery
among the
Hebrews.

Large
number of
slaves in
Greece
and Rome.

well as their social, rights.

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

But though the same in name, it was in its actual working
something wholly different. The Hebrew was not suffered either
by law-giver er by prophet to forget that he himself had been
a bondman in the land of Egypt; and all his relations to his
dependents were moulded by the sympathy of this recollection.
His slaves were members of his family; they were members
also of the Holy Congregation. They had their religious, as
If Hebrews, their liberty was
secured to them after six years’ service at the outside. If
foreigners, they were protected by the laws from the tyranny
and violence of their masters. Considering the conditions of
ancient society, and more especially of ancient warfare, slavery
as practised among the Hebrews was probably an escape from
alternatives which would have involved a far greater amount of
human misery. Still even in this form it was only a temporary
concession, till the fulness of time came, and the world was
taught that ‘in Christ is neither bond nor free *.

Among the Jews the slaves formed only a small fraction of
the whole population®. They occupy a very insignificant place
in the pictures of Hebrew life and history which have been
handed down to us. But in Greece and Rome the case was far
different. In our enthusiastic eulogies of free, enlightened,
democratic Athens, we are apt to forget that the interests
of the many were ruthlessly sacrificed to the selfishness of the
few. The slaves of Attica on the most probable computation
were about four times as numerous as the citizens, and about
three times as numerous as the whole free population of the
state, including the resident aliens®, They were consigned for
the most part to labour in gangs in the fields or the mines

1 On slavery among the Hebrews
see the admirable work of Prof. Gold-
win Smith Does the Bible sanction
American slavery ? p. I 8q.

2 In Ezra ii. 65 the number of slaves
compared with the number of free is
a little more than one to six.

3 Boeckh Public Economy of Athens
p. 35 sq. According to a census taken
by Demetrius Phalereus there were in

the year 309 B.C. 21,000 citizens,
10,000 residents, and 400,000 slaves
(Ctesicles in Athen. vi. p. 272 B).
This would make the proportion of
slaves to citizens nearly twenty to one.
It is supposed however that the num-
ber of citizens here includes only
adult males, whereas the number of
slaves may comprise both sexes and
all ages. Hence Boeckh’s estimate

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 321

or the factories, without any hope of bettering their condition..,
In the light of these facts we see what was really meant by
popular government and equal rights at Athens. The propor-
* tions of the slave population elsewhere were even greater. In
| the small island of Aigina, scarcely exceeding forty English
b square miles in extent, there were 470,000 slaves; in the con-
tracted territory of Corinth there were not. less than 460,000".
The statistics of slave-holding in Italy are quite as startling. We
are told that wealthy Roman landowners sometimes possessed as
many as ten or twenty thousand slaves, or even more*. We may
indeed not unreasonably view these vague and general statements.
with suspicion: but itis a fact that, a few years before the Chris~
tian era, one Claudius Isidorus left by will more than four thou-:
sand slaves,though he had incurred serious losses by the civil war*.
And these vast masses of human beings had no protection Cruelty of
from Roman law*. The slave had no relationships, no con- eae
jugal rights. Cohabitation was allowed to him at his owner’s Lj
pleasure, but not marriage. His companion was sometimes
assigned to him by lot®. The slave was absolutely at his.

master’s disposal; for the smallest offence he might. be scourged,

mutilated, crucified, thrown to the wild beasts *%

which is adopted in the text. For other
calculations see Wallon Histoire de
VEsclavage l. p. 221 sq.

1 Athen, l. c. p. 272 B,D. The state-
ment respecting Aigina is given on
the authority of Aristotle; that re-
specting Corinth on the authority of
Epitimeus.

2 Athen. I,c. ‘Pwualwy exacros ...
mdelarous Scous Kextnuévos olkéras* Kal
yap wuplous Kal Sucuuplovs Kal re welous
5é mdumoddo. Kéxryvrar. See Becker
Gallus i. p. 113 (ed. 3).

3 Plin. N. H. xxxiii. 47.

- 4 On the condition of Greek and
Roman slaves the able and exhaust-
ive work of Wallon Histoire de l’Es-
clavage dans lV’ Antiquité (Paris 1847)
is the chief authority. See also Becker
and Marquardt Rom, Alterth. v. 1. p.
139 8q.; Becker Charikles u. p. 1 8q.,
Gallus 11. p. 99 sq. The practical

COL,

Only two or

working of slavery among the Romans
is placed in its most favourable light in
Gaston Bossier La Religion Romaine
Il, p. 343 Sq. (Paris 1874), and in Over-
beck Studien zur Gesch. d, Alten Kir-
che I. p. 158 sq.

5 Rom, Alterth.1.¢. p. 1848q.; Gallus
I p. 144 8q. In this, ag in other
respects, the cruelty of the legislature
was mitigated by the humanity of in-
dividual masters; and the inscriptions
show that male and female slaves in
many cases were allowed to live to-
gether through life as man and wife,
though the law did not recognise or
secure their union. It was reserved
for Constantine to take the initiative
in protecting the conjugal and family
rights of slaves by legislature; Cod.
Theod. ii. 25. 1.

6 Wallon m1. p, 177 8q.; Rom. Alterth.
l.c.; Gallus 1. p. 145 8q.; Rein Privat-

21

322

Murder of
Pedanius
Secundus.

recht der Romer p. 552 sq. Hadrian

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

three years before the letter to Philemon was written, and
probably during St Paul’s residence in Rome, a terrible tragedy
had been enacted under the sanction of the law’. Pedanius
Secundus, a senator, had been slain by one of his slaves in
a fit of anger or jealousy. The law demanded that in such
cases all the slaves under the same roof at the time should be
put to death. On the present occasion four hundred persons
were condemned to suffer by this inhuman enactment. The
populace however interposed to rescue them, and a tumult
ensued, The Senate accordingly took the matter into delibera-
tion. Among the speakers C. Cassius strongly advocated the
enforcement of the law. ‘The dispositions of slaves,’ he argued,
‘were regarded with suspicion by our ancestors, even when
they were born on the same estates or in the same houses and
learnt to feel an affection for their masters from the first. Now
however, when we have several nations among our slaves, with
various rites, with foreign religions or none at all, it is not
possible to keep down such a rabble except by fear. These
sentiments prevailed, and the law was put in force.
roads were lined by a military guard, as the prisoners were
led to execution, to prevent a popular outbreak. This incident
illustrates not only the heartless cruelty of the law, but also
the social dangers arising out of slavery. Indeed the universal
distrust had already found expression in a common proverb,
‘As many enemies as slaves’ But this was not the only way
in which slavery avenged itself on the Romans. The spread
of luxury and idleness was a direct consequence of this state
of things. Work came to be regarded as a low and degrading,
because a servile occupation. Meanwhile sensuality in its vilest

took place a.p. 61. The law in ques-

But the.

first took away from masters the
power of life and death over their
slaves; Spart. Vit. Hadr. 18 ‘ Servos
a dominis occidi vetuit eosque jussit

_ damnari per judices, si digni essent’,

For earlier legislative enactments which
had afforded a very feeble protection
to slaves, see below p. 327.

1 Tac. Ann. xiv. 42. This incident

tion was the Senatusconsultum Silo-
nianum, passed under Augustus A. D.
10.
2 Senec. Ep. Mor. 47 ‘ Deinde ejus-
dem arrogantiae proverbium jactatur
totidem hostes esse quot servos’; comp.
Macrob. i. 11. 13. See also Festus
p- 261 (Ed. Mueller) ‘Quot servi tot
hostes in proverbio est’. —

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 323.

forms was fostered by the tremendous power which placed the
slave at the mercy of the master’s worst passions’.

With. this wide-spread institution Christianity found itself. Christian-
in conflict. How was the evil to be met? Slavery was in- eda
woven into the texture of society; and to prohibit slavery was #"™"-
to tear society into shreds. Nothing less than a servile war
with its certain horrors and its doubtful issues must have been
the consequence. Such a mode of operation was altogether
alien to the spirit of the Gospel. ‘The New Testament’, it
has been truly said, ‘is not concerned with any political or
social institutions; for political and social institutions belong to
particular nations and particular phases of society.’ ‘Nothing
marks the divine character of the Gospel more than its per-.
fect freedom from any appeal to the spirit of political revo-_
lution®’ It belongs to all time: and therefore, instead of.
attacking special abuses, it lays down universal principles
which shall undermine the evil. |

Hence the Gospel never directly attacks slavery as an in- St Pauls
stitution: the Apostles never command the liberation of slaves of the
as an absolute duty. It is a remarkable fact that St Paul in bah il
this epistle stops short of any positive injunction. The word
‘emancipation’ seems to be trembling on his lips, and yet he
i does not once utter it. He charges Philemon to take the run-
| away slave Onesimus into his confidence again; to receive him

1 See the saying of Haterius in the
elder Seneca Controv, iv. Praef., ‘ Im-
pudicitia in ingenuo crimen est, in
servo necessitas, in liberto officium’,
with its context. Wallon (1. p. 332)

sums up the condition of the slave

thus: ‘L’esclave appartenait au mai-
tre: par lui méme, il n’était rien, il
n’avait rien. Voila le principe; et
tout ce qu’on en peut tirer par voie
de consequence formait aussi, en fait,
l’état commun des esclaves dans la
plupart des pays. A toutes les épo-
ques, dans toutes les situations de la
vie, cette autorité souveraine plane
sur eux et modifie leur destinée par
ses Yigueurs comme par son indif-

ference. Dans l’Age de la force et dans
la plénitude de leurs facultés, elle les
vouait, 4 son choix, soit au travail,
soit au vice; au travail les natures
grossiéres; au vice, les natures plus
délicates, nourries pour le plaisir du
maitre, et qui lorsquw’il en était las,
étaient reléguées dans la prostitution
a son profit. Avant et aprés lage du
travail, abandonnés a leur faiblesse ou
a leurs infirmités; enfants, ils grand-
issaient dans le désordre ; viellards, ils
mouraient souvent dans la misére;
morts, ils étaient quelquefois délaissés
sur la voie publique...’

2 G, Smith Does the Bible etc, ? pp.

95, 96.

2I-—2

324

His lan-
guage re-
specting
slavery
elsewhere.

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

with all affection; to regard him no more as a slave but as
a brother; to treat him with the same consideration, the same
love, which he entertains for the Apostle himself to whom he
owes everything. In fact he tells him to do very much more
than emancipate his slave, but this one. thing he does not
directly enjoin. St Paul’s treatment of this: individual case
is an apt illustration of the attitude of Christianity towards
slavery in general. ! .
Writing to the
Corinthians, he declares the absolute equality of the freeman
and the slave in the sight of God*. It follows therefore that
the slave may cheerfully acquiesce in his lot, knowing that all
earthly distinctions vanish in the light of this eternal truth.
If his freedom should be offered to him, he will do well to
accept it, for it puts him in a more advantageous position’:
but meanwhile he need not give himself any concern about
his lot in life. So again, when he addresses the Ephesians and
Colossians on the mutual obligations of masters and slaves,
he is content to insist on the broad fact that both alike are
slaves of a heavenly Master, and to enforce the duties which

Similar also is his language elsewhere.

1 1 Cor. vii. 21 sq.

2 The clause, dvAN ef Kal dWvacar
€devdepos yevécOat, wadAov xpHoat, has
been differently interpreted from early
times, either as recommending the
slave to avail himself of any oppor-
tunity of emancipation, or as advising
him to refuse the offer of freedom and
to remain in servitude. The earliest
commentator whose opinion I have
observed, Origen (in Cram. Cat. p.
140), interprets it as favourable to
liberty, but he confuses the mean-
ing by giving a metaphorical sense to
slavery, SovAov avduacey dvaykalws Tov
yeyaunkéra. Again, Severianus (ib. p.
141) distinctly explains it as recom-
mending a state of liberty. On the
other hand Chrysostom, while men-
tioning that ‘certain persons’ interpret
it ef dvvacat EhevOepwhjrat, EXevOepwOnrt,
himself supposes St Paul to advise the
slave’s remaining in slavery. And so
Theodoret and others. The balance

of argument seems to be decidedly in
favour of the former view.

(1) The actual language must be
considered first. And here (i) the
particles ef xal will suit either inter-
pretation. Ifthey are translated ‘ even
though’, the clause recommends the
continuance in slavery. But cal may
be equally well taken with dvvaca, and
the words will then mean ‘if it ‘should
be in your power to obtain your free-
dom’. So above ver. 11 édv 6é xa
xwpicd7: comp. Luke xi, 18 ef 6é Kal
6 Laravas éd’ éavrov StemepicOn, 1 Pet.
iii, 14 GAN el Kal wdoxore 5d Sexacoov-
vnv. (ii) The expression “aAXov xpjoac
seems to direct the slave to avail him-
self of some new opportunity offered,
and therefore to recommend liberty;
comp. ix. 12, I5.

(2) The immediate context will
admit either interpretation. If slavery
be preferred, the sentence is con-
tinuous. If liberty, the clause dd)’ ef

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 325

flow from its recognition’. He has no word of reproach for
the masters on the injustice of their position ; he breathes no ©
hint to the slaves of a social grievance needing redress.
But meanwhile a principle is boldly enunciated, which must The
in the end prove fatal to slavery. When the Gospel taught Sagem
that God had made all men and women upon earth of one * *!#very-
family ; that all alike were His sons and His daughters; that,
whatever conventional distinctions human society might set up,
the supreme King of Heaven refused to acknowledge any;
that the slave notwithstanding his slavery was Christ’s freed-
man, and the free notwithstanding his liberty was Christ’s
slave; when the Church carried out this principle by admitting
the slave to her highest privileges, inviting him to kneel side
by side with his master at the same holy table; when in short’
the Apostolic precept that ‘in Christ Jesus is neither bond nor
free’ was not only recognised but acted upon, then slavery was
doomed. Henceforward it was only a question of time. Here
was the idea which must act as a solvent, must disintegrate
this venerable institution, however deeply rooted and however
widely spread: ‘The brotherhood of man, in short, is the idea

kal...uadrov xpicae is parenthetical.
In this latter case its motive is to
correct misapprehension, as if the
Apostle would say, ‘ When I declare
the absolute indifference of the two
states in the sight of God, I do not
mean to say that you should not avail
yourselves of freedom, if it comes in
your way; it puts youin a more ad-
vantageous position, and you will do
well to prefer it’, Such a corrective
parenthesis is altogether after St
Paul’s manner, and indeed instances
occur in this very context: e.g. ver.
1x édy 6é Kal xwpicOF K.7.d., Ver. 15
el 62 6 dmioros xwpifera x.7.X. This
last passage is an exact parallel, for
the yap of ver. 16 is connected imme-
diately with ver. 14, the parenthesis
being disregarded as here.

(3) The argument which seems de-
cisive is the extreme improbability
that St Paul should have recommended

slavery in preference to freedom. For -

(i) Such a recommendation would be
alien to the spirit of a man whose
sense of political right was so strong,
and who asserted his citizenship so
stanchly on more than one occasion
(Acts xvi. 37, xxii. 28). (ii) The in-
dependent position of the freeman
would give him an obvious advantage
in doing the work of Christ, which
it is difficult to imagine St Paul en-
joining him deliberately to forego.
(iii) Throughout the passage the Apo--
stle, while maintaining the indifference
of these earthly relations in the sight
of God, yet always gives the prefer-
ence to a position of independence,
whenever it comes to a Christian na-
turally and without any undue im-
patience on his part. The spirit
which animates St Paul’s injunctions
here may be seen from vy. 8, 11, 15,
26, 27 ete.

1 Ephes. yi. 5—9, Col, iii. 22—iv. 1.

326 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

_ oe which Christianity in its social phase has been always striving
‘ to realise, and the progress of which constitutes the social
history of Christendom. With what difficulties this idea has
struggled; how it has been marred by revolutionary violence, as
well as impeded by reactionary selfishness; to what chimerical
hopes, to what wild schemes, to what calamitous disappoint-
ments, to what desperate conflicts, it has given birth; how
often being misunderstood and misapplied, it has brought not
peace on earth but a sword—it is needless here to rehearse.
Still, as we look back over the range of past history, we can
see beyond doubt that it is towards this goal that Christianity
as a social principle has been always tending and still tends*,’
Its effects And this beneficent tendency of the Gospel was felt at
onslavery: once in its effects on slavery. The Church indeed, even in
the ardour of her earliest love, did not prohibit her sons from
retaining slaves in their households. It is quite plain from
extant notices, that in the earlier centuries, as in the later,
Christians owned slaves* like their heathen neighbours, with-
out forfeiting consideration among their fellow-believers. But
nevertheless the Christian idea was not a dead-letter. The
Protection chivalry of the Gospel which regarded the weak and helpless
and manu- term . j ° oaks
mission of from whatever cause, as its special charge, which extended its
gas protection to the widow, the orphan, the sick, the aged, and the
prisoner, was not likely to neglect the slave. Accordingly we
find that one of the earliest forms which Christian benevolence
took was the contribution of funds for the liberation of slaves*.
Honours But even more important than overt acts like these was the
paid to . ‘ ‘ ;
slave mar- Moral and social importance with which the slave was now
hd invested. Among the heroes and heroines of the Church were
found not a few members of this class) When slave girls like

1G. Smith Does the Bible etc.? p. Christian writers collected in Ba-
13%. bington Abolition of Slavery p. 20 sq.

2 Athenag.. Suppl. 38 dodd\ol elow . 3 Ignat. Polyc. 4 wh épdrwoay dao
hiv, rots wev Kal welous Tots 8’ EXarrovs. TOU Kowod érevepovcOa, Apost. Const.
It would even appear that the domes- iv. g ra é& airav, ws mpoempyKaper,
tic servant who betrayed Polycarp dOpotdueva xphuara Siardocere Siaxo-
(Mart. Polyc. 6) was a slave, for he voivres els dyopacmods Tar aylwy, pud-
was put to the torture. Comp. Justin. mevoe SovrAovs Kal alxuadwrovs, Se-
Apol. ii. 12. See also passages from oylous, K.7.r.

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 327

Blandina in Gaul or Felicitas in Africa, having won for them-
selves the crown of martyrdom, were celebrated in the festivals
of the Church with honours denied to the most powerful and
noblest born of mankind, social prejudice had received a wound
which could never be healed.

While the Church was still kept in subjection, moral in- Christ-
fluence and private enterprise were her only weapons. But gon pre
Christianity was no sooner seated on the throne of the Cesars
than its influence began to be felt in the imperial policy, The
legislation of Constantine, despite its startling mequalities, Legisla-
forms a unique chapter in the statute-book of Rome, In its Fev tal
mixed character indeed it reflects the transitional position of ™*
its author. But after all allowance made for its very patent
defects, its general advance in the direction of humanity and
purity is far greater than can be traced in the legislation even
of the most humane and virtuous of his heathen predecessors.

More especially in the extension of legal protection to slaves,
and in the encouragement given to emancipation, we have an
earnest of the future work which Christianity was destined to

do for this oppressed class of mankind, though the relief which

it gave was after all very partial and tentative’.

1 It must not however be forgotten
.that, even before Christianity became
the predominant religion, a more hu-
‘mane spirit had entered into Roman
legislation. The important enact-
ment of Hadrian has been already
‘mentioned, p. 321, note 6. Even ear-
lier the lex Petronia (of which the date
is uncertain) had prohibited masters
from making their slaves fight with
wild beasts in mere caprice and with-
out an order from a judge (Dig. xlviii.
8. 11); and Claudius (a.p, 47), finding
that the practice of turning out sick
slaves into the streets to die was on
the increase, ordered that those who
survived this treatment should have
their freedom (Dion Cass. lx. 29, Suet.
Claud. 25). For these and similar
enactments of the heathen emperors
see Wallon ur. p. 60 sq., Rém. Alterth.
vy. I. 197, Rein Privatrecht d, Romer

p. 5608q. The character of this excep-

tional legislation is the strongest im-
peachment of the general eruelty of the
law; while at the same time subse-
quent notices show how very far from
effective it was even within its own
narrow limits. See for instance the
passage in Galen, v. p. 17 (ed. Kiihn)

Aaxrifovar Kal rods dpbaryods é£opur-

Tove. Kal ypadelw Kevrovow K.T.Xr, (comp.
ib. p. 584), or Seneca de Ira iii, 3. 6
‘eculei et fidiculae et ergastula et cru-
ces et circumdati defossis corporibus
ignes et cadavera quoque trahens un-
cus, varia vinculorum genera, varia
poenarum, lacerationes membrorum,
inscriptiones frontis et bestiarum im-
manium caveae.’

On the causes of these ameliorations
in the law see Rim, Alterth. v. 1. p. 199.

2? On the legislation of Constan-
tine affecting slavery see De Broglie

The con-

quests and

hopes of
the pre-
sent time.

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

And on the whole this part has been faithfully and courage-
ously performed by the Church. There have been shameful
exceptions now and then: there has been occasional timidity
and excess of caution. The commentaries of the fathers on
this epistle are an illustration of this latter fault’. Much may
be pardoned to,men who shrink from seeming to countenance
a violent social revolution. But notwithstanding, it is a broad
and patent fact that throughout the early and middle ages the
influence of the Church was exerted strongly on the side of
humanity in this matter? The emancipation of slaves was
regarded as the principal aim of the higher Christian life*; the
amelioration of serfdom was a matter of constant solicitude
with the rulers of the Church. 3

And at length we seem to see the beginning of the end.
The rapid strides towards emancipation during the present
generation are without a parallel in the history of the world.
The abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire at
an enormous material sacrifice is one of the greatest moral

L’Eglise et L’Empire Romain t. p. 304 whatcanIdo? For this purpose I am

sq. (ed. 5), Chawner Influence of Chris-
tianity upon the Legislation of Con-
stantine the Great p. 73 sq., Wallon m1.
p. 4148q. The legislation of Justinian
is still more honourably distinguished
for its alleviation of the evils of slavery.

1 £.g. Chrysostom and Theodore of
Mopsuestia (Spic. Solesm. 1. p. 152).
Yet St Chrysostom himself pleads the
cause of slaves earnestly elsewhere.
In Hom. «al ad 1 Cor., x. p. 385 he says
of slavery, ‘It is the penalty of sin and
the punishment of disobedience. But
when Christ came, he annulled even
this, For in Christ Jesus there is no
slave nor free. Therefore it is not ne-
cessary to have a slave; but, if it
should be necessary, then one only or
at most a second’. And he then tells
his audience that if they really care for
the welfare of slaves, they must ‘ buy
them, and having taught them some
art that they may maintain themselves,
set them free.’ ‘I know,’ he adds,
+that Iam annoying my hearers; but

appointed, and I will not cease speak-
ing so.’ On the attitude of this father
towards slavery see Mohler p. 89 sq.

2 On the influence of Christianity in
this respect see Wallon 111. p. 314 8q.,
Biot De VAbolition de VEsclavage
Ancien en Occident (1840), Ch. Ba-
bington Influence of Christianity in
promoting the Abolition of Slavery etc.
(1846), Schmidt Essai historique sur
la Société Civile dans le Monde Romain
etc. p. 228 sq. (1853), Mohler Gesam-
melte Schriften 11. p. 54 8q., G. Smith
Does the Bible etc.? p. 95 8q., E. S. Talbot
Slavery as affected by Christianity .
(1869), Lecky Rationalism in Europe 1.
p- 255 8q., European Morals 11. p. 65
sq., Overbeck Studien etc. 1. p. 172 8qs,
Allard Les Esclaves Chrétiens (1876).
The last-mentioned work, which ap-
peared after this introduction was first
published (1875), treats the question
very fully.

3 Mohler p. 99 8q., Schmidt p.
246 sq., Lecky HE. M. 1. p. 73 sq.

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON,

conquests which England has ever achieved. The liberation of
twenty millions of serfs throughout the Russian dominions has
thrown a halo of glory round the name of Alexander II., which
no time can dim. The emancipation of the negro in the vast
republic of the New World was a victory not less important
than either to the well-being of the human race. Thus within
the short period of little more than a quarter of a century this
reproach of civilisation and humanity has been wiped out in
the three greatest empires of the world, It is a fit sequel
to these achievements, that at length a well-directed attack
should have been made on the central fortress of slavery and
the slave-trade, the interior of Africa. May we not venture
to predict that in future ages, when distance of view shall
have adjusted the true relations of events, when the brilliancy
of empires and the fame of wars shall have sunk to their
proper level of significance, this epoch will stand out in the
history of mankind as the era of liberation? If so, the Epistle
to Philemon, as the earliest prelude to these magnificent social
victories, must be invested with more than common interest
for our generation.

329

i

Bree hy
Payee baka

i,
ME

WHERE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS, THERE
I3 LIBERTY.

WHO IS WEAK, AND I AM NOT WEAK?
WHO IS OFFENDED, AND I BURN NOT?

Such ever was love's way: to rise, it stoops.

IiPO>s

®IAHMONA.

AYAOX, déopios Xpiotov “Incov Kat Tipobeos 6
adedgos, DirAjpmovu TO ayarNTwW Kal TUVEpYe rijueov
Kal Amica ™ adehpn kat Apyinrw Tw rua nee

UwV Kal ™ KaT oOiKOV oov éxkAnota:

I1—3. ‘Pav, now a prisoner of
Christ Jesus, and Trmorny a brother
in the faith, unto PHILEMON our
dearly-beloved and fellow-labourer in
the Gospel, and unto APPHIA our sis-
ter, and unto Arcurppus our fellow-
soldier in Christ, and to the Church
which assembles in thy house. Grace
and peace to you all from God our
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.’

1. Séopsos}] The authoritative title
of ‘Apostle’ is dropped, because
throughout this letter St Paul desires
to entreat rather than to command
(ver. 8,9); see the note on Phil. i, 1.
In its place is substituted a designa-
tion which would touch his friend’s
heart. How could Philemon resist
an appeal which was penned within
prison walls and by a manacled hand?
For this characteristic reference to
his ‘bonds’ see the note on ver. 13.

Tipobeos| Timothy seems to have
been with St Paul during a great part
of his three years’ sojourn in Ephesus
(Acts xix. 22), and could hardly have
failed to make the acquaintance of
Philemon. For the designation 6
addeApos applied to Timothy see the
note on Col. i. 1.

@uAnyou «r.rA.] On the persons
here addressed, and the language in
which they are ’ described, see the in-
troduction p. 303 sq.

ouvepy@] It would probably be
during St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephe-

3 apts UpALV

sus that Philemon had laboured with
him: see above p. 31 sq.

nya | should probably be attached
to dyamnr@ as well as to cvvepyd;
comp. Rom. xvi. 5, 8,9, 1 Cor. x. 14,
Phil, ii, 12.

2. tH adedApq] For this the re-
ceived text has 7 dyamnr7. Internal
probabilities can be urged in favour
of both readings. On the one hand
dyarnry might have been introduced
for the sake of. conformity to the pre-
ceding dyarynr@; on the other adedp7
might have been substituted for dya-
myty On grounds of false delicacy.
Theodore of Mopsuestia (Spicil. So-
lesm. 1. p. 154), who had the reading
ayarnth, feels an apology necessary :
‘Istius temporis (i.e. of the present
time) homines propemodum omnes in
crimine vocandos esse existimant, mo-
do si audierint nomen charitatis. A-
postolus vero non sic sentiebat; sed
contrario etc.” I have preferred r7
adedp7, because the preponderance of
ancient authority is very decidedly in
its favour.

cuvoetpatiotn| These spiritual cam-
paigns, in which Archippus was his
comrade, probably took place while
St Paul was at Ephesus (a.p. 24—57).
For the word cuvarpatidrns see Phil.
ii, 25. The metaphor of orpareia,
otparever Oa, is common in St Paul.

Ti kat oikov «.T.A.] probably at Co-
lossee; see above p. 304.8q. For the

334

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

[4,5

\ > y ’ \ n \ e ~ \ LL 5) ~
Kat elonvn amo Qeou TaTpos nuwy Kal Kuptou “Incou

Xpiorov :

i a A , ,
4EvyapicTo TH Oew shou TavTOTE, [VELAY DOU ToOLOU-
4 é é , 2 5 ;
“ = > >
pevos éml THY TeOTEVX@Y LOU, SdKOVwWY TOV THY ayaTnY

meaning of the expression see the
note on Col. iv. 15.

'4—7. ‘I never cease to give thanks
to my God for thy well-doing, and thou
art ever mentioned in my prayers.
For they tell me of thy love and faith
—thy faith which thou hast in the
Lord Jesus, and thy love which thou
showest towards all the saints; and it
is my prayer that this active sympathy
and charity, thus springing from thy
faith, may abound more and more, as
thou attainest to the perfect know-
ledge of every good thing bestowed
upon us by God, looking unto and
striving after Christ. For indeed it

gave me great joy and comfort to hear’

of thy loving-kindness, and to learn
how the hearts of God’s people had
been cheered and refreshed by thy
help, my dear brother’.

The Apostle’s thanksgiving and in-
tercessory prayer (ver. 4)—the cause
of his thanksgiving (ver. 5)—the pur-
port of his prayer (ver. 6)—the joy
and comfort which he has in Phile-
mon’s good deeds (ver. 7)—this is the
very simple order of topics in these
verses. But meanwhile all established
principles of arrangement are defied
in the anxiety to give expression to
the thought which is uppermost for
the moment. The clause dkovwr k.t.d.
is separated from evxyapioTe x.7.d., On
which it depends, by the intervening
clause pveiay gov x.t.A. Which intro-
duces another thought. It itself in-
terposes between two clauses, pveiay
gov K.T.A. and Orws 7 Kowovia K.T.d.,
which stand in the closest logical and
grammatical connexion with each
other. Its own component elements
are dislocated and inverted in the
struggle of the several ideas for im-
mediate utterance. And lastly, in xa-

pay yap «.t.\. there is again a recur-
rence to a topic which has occurred
in an earlier part of the sentence (ry.
dyarny...<eis mavras Tovs aylovs) but
which has been dropped, before it was
exhausted, owing to the pressure of
another more importunate thought.

4. Evxapioro} See the note on
1 Thess, i 2. ;

mavrote| should probably be taken
with evyapiord (rather than with
pveiay x.7.d.), according to St Paul’s
usual collocation in these opening
thanksgivings: see the notes on Col.
Lo, Phil:

pvelavy cov K.7.A.] ‘making mention
of thee” For pveiav rroeicba see the
note on I Thess. i. 2. Here the ‘ men-
tion’ involves the idea of intercession
on behalf of Philemon, and so intro-
duces the das x.r.A. Of yer. 6. See
the note there.

5. dxovev] Thisinformation would
probably come from Epaphras (Col. i.
7, 8, iv. 12) rather than from Onesi-
mus. The participle is connected
more directly with evyapiord than
with the intervening words, and ex-
plains the grounds of the Apostle’s
thanksgiving.

Thy ayannv x«.7.A.| ie. ‘the faith
which thou hast towards the Lord Je-
sus Christ and the love which thou
showest to all the saints. The logical
order is violated, and the clauses are
inverted in the second part of the sen-
tence, thus producing an example of
the figure called chiasm; see Gal. iv.
4,5. This results here from the Apo-
stle’s setting down the thoughts in
the sequence in which they occur to
him, without paying regard to sym-
metrical arrangement. The first and
prominent thought is Philemon’s love.
This suggests the mention of his faith,

6) EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 335

\ \ , el I \ x / 5 ~ 4 >.
kal THY TioTW HV Exes pos TOY Kuptoy ‘Incovy Kai cis
/ / ~ 4 /
mavTas Tovs ayious, °OTws H KOWWwWViAa THS TiaTEWS GoU
/ \ ~ rot
évepryns yevnta év éexiyvwoe mavTos dyabov Tov év

as the source from which it springs.
This again requires a reference to the
object of faith. And then at length
comes the deferred sequel to the first
thought—the range and comprehen-
siveness of his love. The transition
from the object of faith to the object
of love is more easy, because the love
is represented as springing from the
faith. Some copies transpose the
order, reading tiv miorw kal thy dyd-
ayv—an obvious emendation. Others
would obviate the difficulty by giving
to wiorw the meaning ‘ fidelity, sted-
fastness’; Winer §1. p. 511 sq. Thus
they are enabled to refer both words,
miorw kal ayamnv, equally to both
the clauses which follow. But though
this is a legitimate sense of miotis
in St Paul (see Galatians p. 155),
yet in immediate connexion with jv
éxets mpos tov Kupiov “Ingodr, it is
hardly possible that the word can
have any other than its proper theo-
logical meaning. See the opening of
the contemporary epistle, Col. i. 4.
mpos k.t.A.]| The change of prepo-
sitions, mpos tov Kupiov ‘ towards the
Lord’ and «is rods dyious ‘unto the
saints’, deserves attention. It seems
to arise from the instinctive desire to
separate the two clauses, as they refer
to different words in the preceding
part of the sentence. Of the two pre-
positions the former (mpo-s) signifies
direction ‘forward to’, ‘towards’; the
latter (€v-s) arrival and so contact,
‘in-to’, ‘unto.’ Consequently either
might be used in either connexion;
and as a matter of fact eis is much
more common with riorts (muoreverv), as
it is also with dydzn, mpos being quite
exceptional (1 Thess. i. 8 9 mioris Judy
1) mpos Tov Gedv; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 4),
But where a distinction is necessary,
there is a propriety in using mpos of
the faith which aspires towards Christ,

and eis of the love which is exerted
upon men. Some good copies read

. ets here in both clauses.

6. démws x«.r.A.| to be taken with
pveiay cov Totovpevos kK.T.A., aS giving

~the aim and purport of St Paul’s

prayer. Others connect it with yy
éxeis, aS if it described the tendency
of Philemon’s faith, ‘ita ut’; but, even
if das could bear this meaning, such
a connexion is altogether harsh and
improbable.

n kowwvia x.7.A.] Of many interpre-
tations which have been, or might be,
given of these words, two seem to de-
serve consideration. (1)‘ Your friendly
offices and sympathies, ‘your kindly
deeds of charity, which spring from
your faith’: comp. Phil. i. 5 émi r7
kowevia vuov eis TO evayyéAvov, Heb.
xiii, 16 ths evmotlas Kat Kowovias,
whence xowwvia is used especially
of ‘contributions, almsgiving’, Rom.
xv. 26, 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix, 13. (2)
‘Your communion with God through
faith’: comp. 1 Cor. i, 9, and see also
2 Cor. xiii. 13, 1 Joh. i. 3, 6,7. The
parallel passages strongly support
the former sense. Other interpreta-
tions proposed are, ‘The participa-
tion of others in your faith, through
your example’, or ‘your communion
with me, springing out of your faith’.
This last, which is widely received, is
suggested by ver. 17; €i Kowwvos ei,
dyoi, xara thy miotw, writes Chrysos-
tom, cal xara Ta GAAa odeirers Kowvw~
veiv (comp. Tit. i. 3 xara Kowny rioriv):
but itis out of place in this context.

évepyns| ‘effective’. The Latin
translators must have read évapyns,
for they render the word evidens or
manifesta. Jerome (ad. loc.) speaks
of evidens as the reading of the Latin,
and eficax of the Greek text. The
converse error appears in the mss of
Clem. Hom. xvii. 5, évépyeva for évdp-

330

ea > /
nu ers Xolorov.

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 7

7yapav yap ToANIV Eoxov Kal Tapa-

\ ~ / e/ \ Ul a
KANO €Tl TH ayaTN Gov, OTL TA OTAaYXVA TwV ayiwY

y \ > 5) ,
dvarémavTat Oia cov, ddenpe.
6. év byiv els Xpiordv.

yeta. See also similar vy. Il. in Orig.
GC Cele 125 Se E2;4V. SO:

ev emiyvdcet K.T.A.] ‘in the perfect
knowledge of every good thing’. This
eriyveo.s, involving as it does the
complete appropriation of all truth
and the unreserved identification with
God’s will, is the goal and crown of
the believer’s course. The Apostle
does not say ‘in the possession’ or ‘in
the performance’ but ‘in the know-
ledge of every good thing’; for, in this
higher sense of knowledge, to know is
both to possess and to perform. In
all the epistles of the Roman capti-
vity St Paul’s prayer for his corre-
spondents culminates in this word
eriyvacts :
This émriyvoors is the result. and the
reward of faith manifesting itself in
deeds of love, das 1 Kowavia tis mi-
orews k.T.A. For the sequence comp.
Ephes. iv. 13 efs ryv évornta ths mi-
atews kal Tis éemiyvooews x.T.A., Tit.
1. I kata wiotw exdexTav Geod kal emi-
yuoow adnOeias ths Kar evoéBevay.
The émiyveois therefore which the
Apostle contemplates is Philemon’s
own. There is no reference to the
force of his example on others, as it
is sometimes interpreted, ‘in their re-
cognition of every good thing which
is wrought in you’.

Tou ev nu] ‘which ts in us Chris-
tians’, ‘which is placed within our
reach by the Gospel’; i.e. the whole
range of spiritual blessings, the com-
plete cycle of Christian truth. If the
reading rod év vpiv be adopted, the
reference will be restricted to the
brotherhood at Colossz, but the
meaning must be substantially the
same. Though vpiv has somewhat
better support, we seem to be justi-
fied in preferring jjyiv as being much
moro expressive. In such cases the

see the note on Col. i. 9.

Mss are of no great authority; and in
the present instance scribes would be
strongly tempted to alter jyiv into
vpiv from a misapprehension of the
sense, and a wish to apply the words
to Philemon and his household. A
similar misapprehension doubtless led
in some copies to the omission of rod,
which seemed to be superfluous but
is really required for the sense.

eis Xprorov] ‘unto Christ’, i.e. lead-
ing to Him as the goal. The words
should be connected not with rod év
nuiv, but with the main statement of
the sentence évepyns yevnrat k.t.A.

7. xapav yap] This sentence again
must not be connected with the words
immediately preceding. It gives the
motive of the Apostle’s thanksgiving
mentioned in ver. 4. This thanks-
giving was the outpouring of gratitude
for the joy and comfort that he had
received in his bonds from the report
of Philemon’s generous charity. The
connexion therefore is evxaptora TO
Oc@ pov...... dkovoy gov THY ayarny
»--xapayv yap toAAjy e€oxov K.t-A. For
xapar the received text (Steph. but not
Elz.) reads yapiv, which is taken to
mean ‘thankfulness’ (1 Tim. i. 12,
2 Tim. i. 3); but this reading is abso-
lutely condemned by the paucity of
ancient authority.

ra omAdayxva| ‘the heart, the spi-
rits’. On ra omdayxva, the nobler vis-
cera, regarded as the seat of the emo-
tions, see the note on Phil. i.8. Here
the prominent idea is that of terror,
grief, despondency, etc.

avaréravta.| ‘have been relieved,
refreshed’, comp. ver. 20. The com-
pound dvaravecOar expresses a tem-
porary relief, as the simple maveo@ac
expresses a final cessation: Plut. Vit.
Lucull. 5 woddav adOis dvaxwotvrav
Tov Miépidarikov modepnov &pn Mapxos

8, 9]

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

337

j ~ os af /
8Aio moAAny év XpioTa@ Tappnoiay éxwy émiTaccew
a 4 \ / a ~~
wor TO avikov, 90a THY ayamnv waddov Tapakado,
o FS haan. a B / \ } \ \ } /
To.ovTos wy ws IlavAos mpeoBuTns vue d€ Kat déopLos
g. viv dé Kal déomcos.

avrov ov memadaOat aA’ avate-
wavoOat Thus it implies ‘relaxation,
refreshment’, as a preparation for the
renewal of labour or suffering. It is
an Ignatian as well as a Pauline word ;
Ephes. 2, Smyrn. 9, 10, 12, Trail. 12,
Magn. 15, Rom. to.

adeApé] For the appeal suggested
by the emphatic position of the word,
comp. Gal. vi. 18. See also the note
on ver. 20 below.

8—17. ‘Encouraged by these tid-
ings of thy loving spirit, I prefer to
entreat, where I might command. My
office gives me authority to dictate
thy duty in plain language, but love
bids me plead as a suitor. Have I not
indeed a right to command—I Paul
whom Christ Jesus long ago commis-
sioned as His ambassador, and whom
now He has exalted to the rank of His
prisoner? But I entreat thee. I have
a favour to ask for a son of my own—
one doubly dear to me, because I be-
came his father amidst the sorrows of
my bonds. ,I speak of Onesimus, who
in times past was found wholly untrue
to his name, who was then far from
useful to thee, but now is useful to
' thee—yea, and to myself also. Him I
send back to thee, and I entreat thee
to take him into thy favour, for in
giving him I am giving my own heart.
Indeed I would gladly have detained
him with me, that he might minister
to me on thy behalf, in these bonds
with which the Gospel has invested
me. But I had scruples. I did not
wish to do anything without thy direct
consent; for then it might have seem-
ed (though it were only seeming) as if
thy kindly offices had been rendered
by compulsion and not of free will.
So I have sent him back. Indeed :it
may have been God’s providential de-
sign, that he was parted from thee for

COL.

a season, only that thou mightest re-
gain him for ever; that he left thee as
a slave, only that he might return to
thee a beloved brother. This indeed
he is to me most of all; and, if to me,
must he not be so much more to thee,
both in worldly things and in spiritual?
If therefore thou regardest me as a
friend and companion, take him to
thee, as if he were myself? -

8. Ao] ice. ‘Seeing that I have
these proofs of thy love, I prefer to
entreat, where I might command’.

mappnotay] ‘confidence’, literally
‘freedom’ or ‘privilege of speech’;
see the notes on Col. ii. 15, Ephes. iii.
12. It was his Apostolic authority
which gave him this right to command
in plain language. Hence the addi-
tion é€v Xpiore.

To avnkov| ‘what is fitting’: see
the note on Col. iii. 18.

9. dia Hv ayarny| ‘for love’s sake’,
i.e. ‘having respect to the claims of
love’. It is not Philemon’s love (vv.
5, 7), nor St Paul’s own love, but love
absolutely, love regarded as a principle
which demands a deferential respect.

ro.ovtos ov x.T.Ar.| ‘being such an
one as Paul an ambassador, and now
also a prisoner, of Christ Jesus’.
Several questions of more or less diffi-
culty arise on these words. (1) Is
rowovros wav to be connected with or
separated from ws IladXos «.r.A.? If se-
parated, rovodros wy will mean ‘though
as an Apostle I am armed with such
authority’, and ws Iaddos x7. will
describe his condescension to entreaty,
‘yet as simply Paul, etc.’ But the
other construction is much more pro-
bable for the following reasons. (@)
TowouTos ov so used, implying, as it
would, something of a personal boast,
seems unlike St Paul’s usual mode
of speaking. Several interpreters in-

22

338

Xpicrou ‘Incov.

deed, taking rowitros &v separately,
refer it to ver. 8, ‘seeing that this is
my disposition’, i.e. ‘seeing that I
desire to entreat’; but rovdros sug-
_ gests more than an accidental impulse.
(b) As rocodros and os are correlative
words, itismorenatural toconnectthem
together; comp. Plato Symp. 181 E
mpocavaykatey TO TOLOUTOY woTrep Kal
«.7.r., Alexis (Meineke Fragm. Com.
IIL. p. 399) rowotro To (nv éeotw eomep
oi xvBo.. Such passages are an answer
‘to the objection that rowdros would
require some stronger word than os,
such as otos, ds, or dare. Even after
such expressions a8 6 avrds, TO auto,
instances occur of os (womep): see
Lobeck Phryn. p. 427, Stallbaum on
Plat. Phed. 86 A. Indeed it may be
questioned whether any word but os
would give exactly St Paul’s meaning
here. (c) All the Greek commentators
without a single exception connect
the words rovodros ay ws Tlatdos to-
gether. (2) Assuming that the words
ToLoUTos @y ws K.7T.A. are taken toge-
ther, should they be connected with
the preceding or the following sen-
tence? On the whole the passage is
more forcible, if they are linked to the
preceding words. In this case the re-
sumptive mapaxad@ (ver. 10) begins a
new sentence, which introduces a fresh
subject. ‘The Apostle has before de-
scribed the character of his appeal;
he now speaks of its object. (3) In
either connexion, what is the point of
the words rowwtros dy ws Haddos
k.t.A.? Do they lay down the grounds
of his entreaty, or do they enforce his
right to command? If the view of
mpecRurns adopted below be correct,
the latter must be the true interpre-
tation; but even though mpecBurns
be taken in its ordinary sense, this
will still remain the more probable
alternative; for, while mpeoBvrns and
déopios would suit either entreaty or
command, the addition Xpiorod *Inaod
suggests an appeal to authority.

os Ilad\os] The mention of his per-
sonal name involves an assertion of

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

[to

~~ 4 ~ lol y
rapakadw Ge EPL TOU EMOU TEKVOV,

authority, as in Ephes. iii. 1; comp.
Gal. v. 2, with the note there. Theo-
doret writes, o IlatAov dkovoas ris
olkoupéyns dkover TOY KNpUKa, ys Kat
Oadarrns Tov yewpyov, Tis €kNoyhs TO
OKEvOS, K.T.A.

mpecBurns] Comparing a passage in
the contemporary epistle, Ephes. vi.
20 Umép ov mpecBevw ev advoe, it
had occurred to me that we should
read mpeoBeuvrns here, before I was
aware that this conjecture had been
anticipated by others, e.g. by Bentley
(Crit. Sacr. p. 93) and by Benson
(Paraphrase etc. on Six Epistles of
St Paul, p. 357). It has since been
suggested independently in Linwood’s
Observ. qued. in nonnulla N. T. loca
1865, and probably others have enter-
tained the same thought. Sti!l believ-
ing that St Paul here speaks of him-
self as an ‘ambassador’, I now ques-
tion whether any change is necessary.
There is reason for thinking that in
the common dialect mpeoBitns may
have been written indifierently for
mpeoBevrns in St Paul’s time; and if
so, the form here may be due, not to
some comparatively late scribe, but
to the original autograph itself or to
an immediate transcript.: In 1 Macc.
xiv, 21 the Sinaitic Ms has o. wpecfv-
repo. (a corruption of o apecBurat
ot, for the common reading is oi rpeo-
Bevrat of); in xiv. 22 it reads mpeoBv-
tat lovdawy; but in xiii. 21 mpecBev-
ras: though in all passages alike the
meaning is ‘ambassadors’. Again the
Alexandrian Ms has mpeoBuras in xiii.
21, but mpeoBevrae in xiv. 22, and os
mpeoBevre ov (i.e. of mpeoBevrat of) in
xiv. 21. In 2 Macc. xi. 34 this same
MS has mpeoBure, and the reading of
the common texts of the Lxx (even
Tischendorf and Fritzsche) here is
ampeoBdra. Grimm treats it as mean-
ing ‘ambassadors’, without even no-
ticing the form. Other mss are also
mentioned in Holmes and Parsons
which have the form apeoBurns in
i Mace: xii-2t. In. 2 Chron,:xxxii,
31 again the word for ‘ambassador’

ots

4
‘i
L
i

11] EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

339

> ra ~ / , ,
dv [eyo] éyévvnea év Tots Seapots, Ovnomoyv, ™ Tov more

is written thus in the Vatican ms,
though the ¢ is added above the line;
and here too several Mss in Holmes
and Parsons agree in reading mpeo-
Biras. Thus it is plain that, in
the age of our earliest extant Mss
at all events, the scribes used both
forms indifferently in this sense. So
also Eusebius on Isaiah xviii. 2 writes
6 dé ’AkdAas mpeoBuras e&edwxev
ei ov, ‘O drooréAdov év Oaddoon mpeo-
Buiras. Again in Ignat. Smyrn. 11
OeompesButns is the form in all the
Mss of either recension, though the
meaning is plainly ‘an ambassador
of God.” So too in Clem. Hom. Ep.
Clem. 6 the mss read o tis adneias
mpeaBurns, Which even Schwegler and
Dressel tacitly retain. See also Ap-
pian Samn. 7, where mpeoBevrov is due
to the later editors, and Acta Thomae
§ 10, where there is a v. 1. mpeoBurns
in at least one ms. And probably ex-
amples of this substitution might be
largely multiplied.

The main reason for adopting this
rendering is the parallel passage, which
suggests it very strongly. The diffi-
culty which many find in St Paul’s
describing himself as an old man is
not serious. On any showing he must
have been verging on sixty at this
time and may have been some years
older. A life of unintermittent toil
and suffering, such as he had lived,
would bring a premature decay; and
looking back on a long eventful life,
he would naturally so think and speak
of himself. Thus Roger Bacon (Opus
Majust. 10, p. 15,ed. Jebb; Opus Ter-
tiwm p. 63, ed. Brewer) writes ‘me
senem’, ‘nos senes’, in 1267, though
he appears to have been not more
than fifty-two or fifty-three at the
time and lived at least a quarter of a
century after (see E. Charles Roger
Bacon, Sa Vie etc. pp. 4 8q., 40). So
too Scott in his fifty-fifth year speaks
of himself as ‘an old grey man’
and ‘aged’ (Lockhart’s Life vu. pp.
327, 357). It is more difficult to

understand how St Paul should make
his age a ground of appeal to Phi-
lemon who, if Archippus was _ his
son, cannot have been much younger
than himself. The commentator Hi-
lary says that the Apostle appeals
to his friend ‘quasi coaevum aeta-
tis’, but this idea is foreign to the
context. The comment of Theophy-
lact is, rovovtos ay, dyno, m peoBev-
THS, Kal ovTws G&tos dxoverbar, os
eikos IladAov mpecBurnv, tovréote Kal
dro tov didackadixod déidparos Kat
TOU xpOvov To aldéoimoy Exovra K.T.A.
Does he mean to include both mean-
ings in mpeoBurns? Or is he accident-
ally borrowing the term ‘ambassador’
from some earlier commentator with-
out seeing its bearing ?

kai d€opuos| Another title to respect.
The mention of his bonds might sug-
gest either an appeal for commisera-
tion or a claim of authority: see the
note on ver.13. Here the addition of
Xptorod "Incod invests it with the cha-
racter of an official title, and so gives
prominence to the latter idea. To his
old office of ‘ambassador’ Christ has
added the new title of‘ prisoner.’ The
genitive Xpicrod Inoov belongs to
mpeoBurns as well as to déopcos, and
in both cases describes the person who
confers the office or rank,

10. mapaxado oex.t.r.] St Chryso-
stom remarks on the Apostle’s with-
holding the name, until he has favour-
ably disposed Philemon both to the
request and to the object of it; roov-
ros O€ mpodedvas avrov riv wWuyny,
ovde evOéws eveBade Td Svopa, aGAdAa
Tooa’Tny Tomodpevos airnow avaBar-
Aerat x.7.A. The whole passage de-
serves to be read.

ov eyévynoa k.t.A.] So too 1 Cor. iv.
15. In Gal. iv. 19 he speaks of him-
self as suffering a mother’s pangs for
his children in the faith. Comp. Phil.
Leg. ad Cai. 8 (i. p. 554) euov éore
Tov Mdxpwvos épyov T'aios* padXov avrov
7) ov NTTOY TAY yovewy yeyEevynka.

év tois Secpois] He was doubly

22-—2

340

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. [r2

sf \ A y \ : ae \ 4 ec
Go. aypnorov, vuvt dé [Kal] wot Kal Emot EevVypnoToY? ov
> , / 9 A / b) \ /
avereuvva ool. “avTov, ToVTéETTW Ta Eua OTAAYXVA,

dear tothe Apostle, as being the child
of his sorrows.

-Ovnctpov] for ’Ovnaipov by attrac-
tion, as e.g. Mark vi. 16 dv éyd drexe-
dadioa “Iwdvyny, odtos éorw. Hence-
forward he will be true to his name,
no longer avovytos, but ovnoos: comp.
Ruth i. 20 ‘Call me not Naomi (plea-
sant) but call me Mara (bitter) etc.’
The word adypnoros is a synonyme for
avoyntos, Demosth. Phil. iii. § 40 (p.
121) dwavra ratta axypnota ampakra
advovnra k.7.r.: comp. Pseudophocyl.
37 (34) xpnords ovrnouos éart, Pidos
& dduov davovntos. The significance
of names was a matter of special im-
portance among the ancients. Hence
they were careful in the inauguration
of any great work that only those who
had bona nomina, prospera nomina,
Sausta nomina, should take part: Cic.
de Di. 1.45, Plin. WV... xxviii. 2. 5,
Tac. Hist. iv. 53. On the value at-
tached to names by the ancients, and
more especially by the Hebrews, see
Farrar Chapters on Language p. 267
sq., where a large number of instances
are collected. Here however there is
nothing more than an affectionate
play on a name, such as might occur
to any one at any time: comp. Euseb.
fH. EL. V. 24.6 Eipnvaios hepovupos tis
Oy Th mpoonyopia, a’T@ Te TH TpO-
7@ eipnvorrotos.

II. dypyorov,evxpyoroy | Comp. Plat.
Resp. iil. p. 411 A xpnoov && dypy-
otov...eroinaeyv. Of these words, aypn-
otos is found only here, evypnoros
occurs also 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11, in the
New Testament. Both appear in the
Lxx, In Matt. xxv. 30a slave is de-
scribed as axpeios. For the mode of
expression comp. Ephes. v. 15 pi) os
acodot ddd’ ds coho. Some have dis-
covered in these words a reference to
xploros, aS commonly pronounced xpn-
otros; comp. Theoph. ad Autol. i. 12
TO xptorov Ov Kal evypnoToy K.T.A.

and see Philippians p.16 note. Any

such allusion however, even if it should
not involve an anachronism, is far too
recondite to be probable here. The
play on words is exhausted in the
reference to ’Ovnowos.

kat €uoi] An after-thought ; comp.
Phil. ii. 27 7}Aénoev avrov, ovK avrov
O€ povoy adda kai eve. This accounts
for the exceptional order, where ac-
cording to common Greek usage the
first person would naturally precede
the second.

dverepva] ‘I send back’, the epis-
tolary aorist used for the present: see
the notes on Phil. ii. 25,28. So too éypa-
ava, ver. 19, 21 (see the note). It is
clear both from the context here, and
from Col. iv. 7—9, that Onesimus ac-
companied the letter.

12. avrov xzr.A.] The reading of
the received text is ov dé adrov, rour-
€oTt Ta €ua omddyxva, mpocAaPov.,
The words thus supplied doubtless
give the right construction, but must
be rejected as deficient in authority.
The accusative is suspended; the sen-
tence changes its form and loses itself
in a number of dependent clauses;
and the main point is not resumed till
ver. 17 mpocAaBov avrov ws eye, the
grammar having been meanwhile dis-
located. For the emphatic position
of adroyv comp. John ix. 21, 23, Ephes.
7:

Ta éua omdayxval ‘my very heart,
a mode of speech common in all lan-
guages. For the meaning of omAayxva
see the note on Phil. i. 8. Comp.
Test. Patr. Zab. 8, Neph. 4, in both
which passages Christ is called 76
onAayxvov of God, and in the first it
is said ¢yere evomAayxviay...iva Kat 6
Kuptos els tas omdayxuabels eheqon
vuas’ Ott kalye ém éoyxaTav nuepov
0 Geds dmooréAXet TO OTAayXVOY av-
Tov ent ths ys x7T.A. Otherwise
Ta é€ua omddyxva has been interpreted
‘my son’ (comp. ver. 10 oy éyevynoa
k.7.A.), and it is so rendered here in

13, 14]

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

341

13 a § A 3 / \ > \ , e/ e A

dv éyw éBovAduny mpos euavTOV KaTEXElY, tva UTEP

cov po Siaxovn év Tots Serpois TOU EvayyeNtou ™ xwpis
£

the Peshito. For this sense of omdy-
xva comp. Artemid. Oneir. i. 44 of
maides omhayxva Aéyorrat, b. v. 57
Ta S€ omAayxva [eonpawe}] rov maida,
ovT@ yap Kal Tov maida Kadeiv Bos eort.
With this meaning it is used not less
of the father than of the mother;
©.8. Philo de Soseph. 5 (11. p. 45) Onp-
ov evaxia Kat Ooivn yéyovas yevoape-
VOLS +++ TOV epav omhayxvar, Basil. Op.
IIL. p. 501 6 bev mporeiverat Ta oTAay-
xva tinny trav rpopav. The Latin vis-
cera occurs still more frequently in
this sense, as the passages quoted in
Weitstein and Suicer show. For this
latter interpretation there is much to
be said. But it adds nothing to the
previous év éyévwnoa «.r.d., and (what
is a more serious objection) it is
wholly unsupported by St Paul’s
usage elsewhere, which connects
omdayxva with a different class of
ideas: see e.g. VV. 7, 20.

13. €Bovdrouny] ‘I was of a mind’,
distinguished from 70€Anoa, which
follows, in two respects; (1) While
BotrAeoOa involves the idea of ‘pur-
pose, deliberation, desire, mind’, 6¢-
Aew denotes simply ‘ will’; Epictet. L
12. 13 BovAdpar ypadeww, ds OedAw, TO
Alwvos dvopa; ov’ ddda didacKopar Oé-
Aew as Set ypaderOa, ili. 24. 54 rTov-
rov Oéde pay, kai dv Bovre oer. (2)
The change of tenses is significant.
The imperfect implies a tentative, in-
choate process; while the aorist de-
scribes a definite and complete act.
The will stepped in and put an end
to the inclinations of the mind. In-
deed the imperfect of this and similar
verbs are not infrequently used where
the wish is stopped at the outset by
some antecedent consideration which
renders it impossible, and thus prac-
tically it is not entertained at all: e.g.
Arist. Ran. 866 éBovAdpunv pev ovk
épitew évOade, Antiph. de Herod. caed.
I (p. 129) ¢BovAcuny pev...vov d€ K.7.X. 5
Isaeus de Arist. haer. I. (p. 79) €Bovdo-

pny pev...vov dé ovx e& ioov xrA.,
Asch. c. Ctes. 2 (p. 53) éBovdopuny
pev ovv, ® ’AOnvaiot...emed) Sé mavra
k.t.A., Lucian Abd. I €Bovdduny pev
ovv thy iarpiKny K.T.A....vuvl dé K.T.A. 5
see Kithner § 392 0 (11.p. 177). So
Acts xxv. 22 ¢€BovAounv kal adros
Tov avOpemrov axovoa, not ‘I should
wish’ (as Winer § xli. p. 353) but ‘I
could have wished’, i.e. ‘if it had not
been too much to ask’. Similarly
#O0edov Gal. iv. 20, ndxouny Rom. ix. 3.
See Revision of the English New
Testament p. 96. So here a not im-
probable meaning would be not ‘I
was desirous’, but ‘I could have de-
sired’,

caréxew] ‘to detain’ or ‘retain’,
opposed to the following dzéyns, ver.
15.

Umeép cou Kr h.] Comp. Phil. ii. 30
iva dvardnpdon TO UO vorépnpa Ths
mpos pe Aecroupyias, 1 Cor. xvi. 17 To
vperepov voTéepnpa avTol dvemAnpocar.
See the note on Col.i.7. With a de-
licate tact the Apostle assumes that
Philemon would have wished to per-
form these friendly offices in person,
if it had been possible.

év tots Secpois| An indirect appeal
to his compassion: see vv. I, 9, 10.
In this instance however (as in ver. 9)
the appeal assumes a tone of author-
ity, by reference to the occasion of his
bonds. For the genitive rod edayye-
Aiov, describing the origin, comp. Col.
i. 23 THs eAmidos rod evayyediov. They
were not shackles which self had
riveted, but a chain with which
Christ had invested him. Thus they
were as a badge of office or a decora-
tion of honour. In this respect, as in
others, the language of St Paul is
echoed in the epistles of St Ignatius.
Here too entreaty and triumph alter-
nate; the saint’s bonds are at once
a ground for appeal and a theme of
thanksgiving: TZrall. 12 mapaxadet
vpas ra Seopd pov, Philad. 7 pdprus

342 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

[15, 16

\ a na , »Qt fy! ~ e/ \ e
d€ THS ONS yvwuns ovdEeV HOEAnTA TOoInTaAL, Wa pH ws
. \ / > \ \ /
KaTa dvayKny TO ayabov cov 7, d\AA KaTa ExoVc.oV:

4
\ A “ , A </ e/ aad:
Staya yap dia TovTo éxwpicOn mpos wpay, iva aiwvoy

P) \ ’ , 16 > 7 €
QAUTOV ATTENNS OUKETL WS

dé por ev d Sédenar, Ephes. 11 év o (ie.
Xpior@ “Incov) ta Seopa mepipépa,
ToUs MvevpatiKods papyapitas, Smyrn.
10 davrivvuxov vudy TO mvedpa pov Kal
ra Seopa pov, Magn. I év ois mepipéepo
Seopois ad tas exkAnoias; see also
Ephes. 1, 3, 21, Magn. 12, Trail. 1,5,
10, Smyrn. 4, 11, Polyc. 2, Rom. 1, 4,
5, Philad. 5.

14. yxowpis xr.r.] 6 without thy ap-
proval, consent’; Polyb. ii. 21. 1, 3,
Xopis tis oderépas yrduns, xwpls tis
avTov yvouns: similarly dvev [ris]
yrouns, eg. Polyb. xxi. 8 7, Ign.
Polye. 4.

ws kata dvayknv| St Paul does not
Say kata dvayxny but ws Kara avaykny.
He will not suppose that it would
really be by constraint; but it must
not even wear the appearance (és) of
being so; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 17 os év
adpoovyn. See Plin. Lp. ix. 21 ‘ Vereor
ne videar non rogare sed cogere’;
where, as here, the writer is asking
his correspondent to forgive a domes-
tic who has offended.

To dyabdv oou] ‘the benefit arising
Jrom thee’, i.e. ‘the good which I
should get from the continued pre-
sence of Onesimus, and which would
be owing to thee’.

kata éxovovov] asin Num. xv. 3. The
form xa@’ éxovciay igs perhaps more
classical: Thuc. viii. 27 xa@ éxovoiay
7} tmavu ye dvayxn. The word under-
stood in the one case appears to be
rpomov (Porphyr. de Abst. i. 9 xa’
Exovotov Tporov, comp. Eur. Med. 751
€xovoia tpom@); in the other, yrouny
(So éxovoia, €& exovaias, etc.): comp.
Lobeck Phryn. p. 4.

I5. tdaya yap x.-A.] The yap ex-
plains an additional motive which
guided the Apostle’s decision: ‘I did
not dare to detain him, however

roy \ lon
dovAov, GAA VarEep SovAoY,

much I desired it. I might have de-
feated the purpose for which God in
His good providence allowed him to
leave thee’.

€xwpiabn |‘ He does not say’, writes
Chrysostom, ‘ For this cause he fled,
but for this cause he was parted:
for he would appease Philemon by a
more euphemistic phrase. And again
he does not say he parted himself,
but he was parted: since the design
was not Onesimus’ own to depart for
this or that reason: just as Joseph
also, when excusing his brethren,
says (Gen. xlv. 5) God did. send me
hither?

mpos pay] ‘for an hour,’ ‘for «a
short season’: 2 Cor. vii. 8, Gal. ii. 5.
‘It was only a brief moment after all’,
the Apostle would say, ‘compared
with the magnitude of the work
wrought in it. He departed a repro-
bate; he returns a saved man. He
departed for a few months ; he returns
to be with you for all time and for
eternity’. This sense of aidvov must
not be arbitrarily limited. Since he
left, Onesimus had obtained eternal
life, and eternal life involves eternal
interchange of friendship. His ser-
vices to his old master were no longer
barred by the gates of death.

aréxns| In this connexion dréyew
may bear either of two senses: (1) ‘to
have back, to have in return’ : or (2)
‘to have to the full, to have wholly’,
as in Phil. iv. 18 dméyw wavra (see the
note). In other words the prominent
idea in the word may be either resti-
tution, or completeness. The former
is the more probable sense here, as
suggested by xaréyew in verse 13 and
by é€xapio6n in this verse.

16. os SovAov] St Paul does not
say SovAov but ws SotAov. It was a

OT ee Se

i pag)

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

343

> A , r] a
addeAhov adyamntov, padiota éuol, moow O& paddov

\ \ ] \ \ > /
Got Kal €V DWapKi Kal Ev Kupiw.

2 > 4
“TEL OUV ME EXELS KOL-

/ ~ > \ € > / 18 .? / 2\/ ,
vwvov, mpocdaPov avTov ws emer * et O€ Tu HOikno€ey oe

vA a 4 ,
n deter, TOUTO éuot EhAOYA.

matter of indifference whether he
‘were outwardly dovAos or outwardly
€devbepos, since both are one in Christ
(Col. iii. 11). But though he might
still remain a slave, he could no longer
be as a slave. A change had been
wrought in him, independently of his
possible manumission: in Christ he
had become a brother. It should be
noticed also that the negative is not
pyxért, but ovcére. The negation is
thus wholly independent of iva...dzé-
xns- It describes not the possible
view of Philemon, but the actual state
of Onesimus. The‘ no more asa slave’
is an absolute fact, whether Philemon
chooses to recognise it or not.

adeApov dyarnroy] kal TO xpdve ke-
képdakas Kal TH movoTnt1, writes Chry-
sostom, apostrophizing Philemon.

moo@ dé paddov x.7.A.] Having first
said ‘most of all to me’, he goes a
step further, ‘more than most of all
to thee’.

kal €v capki k.r.A.] ‘In both spheres
alike, in the affairs of this world and
in the affairs of the higher life.’ In
the former, as Meyer pointedly says,
Philemon had the brother for a slave;
in the latter he had the slave for a
brother: comp. Ign. Zrall. 12 xara
mavra pe avérmavoay capki Te Kal mvev-
part.

17. éxets Kowovov] ‘thou holdest
me to be a comrade, an intimate
JSriend. For this use of éyew comp.
Luke xiv. 18 ye we mapytnpuévoy, Phil.
ii. 29 rovs Tovovrovs évripous exere.
Those are co.vwvoi, who have common
interests, common feelings, common
work,

18—22. ‘But if hehas done thee
any injury, or if he stands in thy debt,
setit down tomy account. Here is my
signature—Pau/—in my own hand-

9 éyw TaiXos éypawa

writing. Accept this as my bond. I
will repay thee. For I will not in-
sist, as I might, that thou art indebted
to me for much more than this; that
thou owest to me thine own self. Yes,
dear brother, let me receive from my
son in the faith such a return as a
father has a right to expect. Cheer
and refresh my spirits in Christ. I
have full confidence in thy compli-
ance, as I write this ; for I know that
thou wilt do even more than [ ask.
At the same time also prepare to
receive me on a visit; for 1 hope that
through your prayers I shall be set
free and given to you once more.’

18. ei d€ rt] The case is stated
hypothetically but the words doubt-
less describe the actual offence of
Onesimus. He had done his master
some injury, probably had robbed
him; and he had fled to escape pun-
ishment. See the introduction.

i) odeider] defining the offence which
has been indicated in 7diknoer. But
still the Apostle refrains from using
the plain word ékdAeyev. He would
spare the penitent slave, and avoid
irritating the injured master.

édddya] ‘ reckon it in’, ‘ set it down’.
This form must be adopted instead of
é\Adyet Which stands in the received
text, as the great preponderance of
authority shows. On the other hand
we have é\Aoyeirac Rom. v. 13 (though
with a v.L éAdoyarat), €Adoyoupevar
Boeckh C.J. no. 1732 A, and évAoyei-
cba Edict. Diocl. in Corp. Inscr. Lat.
ir. p. 836. But the word is so rare
in any form, that these occurrences of
édXoyelv afford no ground for exclud-
ing é\Noyav as impossible. The two
forms might be employed side by side,
just as we find ¢Aeay and éAecetv, Evpav
and éupetv, épwrav and éepareiv (Matt.

344

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

[20

As , 3 \ r) , v4 N / J \
Th E71] XElLOL, eEyW ATOTiIOW® lVAa Bu Aeyw OOl, OTL KQL

, /
TEAUTOV MOL MpcaToPerers.

, / , ?
*yai, adEADE, EY Tou Cvai-

’ / ; ’ / , \ la ’ a
pnv €v Kuptw: avarravooy pou Ta o7Aayxva €v Xpiorw.

xv. 23), and the like; see Buttmann
Ausf. Gramm. § 112 (1. p. 53). The
word Aoyay, as used by Lucian Lexiph.
15 (where it is a desiderative ‘to be
eager to speak’, like dovay, Oavaray,
cappaxay, etc.), has nothing to do with
the use of €Adoyay here.

19. éyd TladAos] The introduc-
tion of his own name gives it the cha-
racter of a formal and binding signa-
ture: comp. 1 Cor. xvi.21, Col. iv. 18,
2 Thess. iii. 17. A signature to a
deed in ancient or medizyal times
would commonly take this form, eyo o
deiva,— J so and so’; where weshould
omit the marks of the first person.

éypawa| An epistolary or docu-
mentary aorist, as in ver. 21; so too
avéreuya ver. 11. See the note on
éypava Gal. vi.11. The aorist is the
tense commonly used in signatures;
e.g. uréypaya to the conciliar de-
crees.

This incidental mention of his auto-
graph, occurring where it does,
shows that he wrote the whole letter
with his own hand. This procedure
is quite exceptional, just as the pur-
port of the letter is exceptional. In
all other cases he appears to have
employed an amanuensis, only adding
a few words in his own handwriting
at the close: see the note on Gal. /.c.

iva py Aéeyo] ‘not to say’, as 2 Cor.
ix. 4. There isa suppressed thought,
‘though indeed you cannot fairly claim
repayment’, ‘though indeed you owe
me (ddeidevs)as muchas this’, on which
the iva pr x.t.A. is dependent. Hence
mpocoeirers ‘ owest besides’; for this
is the common meaning of the word.

ceavrov] St Paul was his spiritu-
al father, who had begotten him in
the faith, and to whom therefore he
owed his being; comp. Plato Legg. iv.
DP. 717 B ws Oéus opeidovra amoriver

Ta TpPOTA Te Kal peytora O*ecAnuara...
vouivew O€, a KeKTNTaL Kal éxel, TavTA
eival TOY YEVYNTAYTOY...apyoLEVvoy
amo Ths ovaias, Sevtepa Ta TOU GwparTos,
tpita Ta THs Wuxi, aworivovtra ba-
velOparta K.T.A.

20. vai| introducing an affectionate
appeal as in Phil. iv. 3 vai épwrd kat
oe.
adedpé] Itis the entreaty of a bro-
ther to a brother on behalf of a bro-
ther (ver. 16). For the pathetic ap-
peal involved in the word see the
notes on Gal. iii. 15, vi. 1, 18; and
comp. ver. 7.

eyo] ‘I seem to be entreating for
Onesimus; but I gm pleading for my-
self: the favour wiil be done to me’;
comp. ver. 17 mpocAaBov avrov ws épe.
The emphatic ¢y# identifies the cause
of Onesimus with his own.

gov ovaipnny] ‘may I have satis-
Jaction, find comfort in thee’, i.e. ‘may
I receive such a return from thee, as
a father has a right to expect from
his child’ The common use of the
word ovaiuny would suggest the
thought of filial offices; eg. Arist.
Thesm. 469 ovtws ovaipny trav TéK-
vov, Lucian Philops. 27 mpos tiv
ow TdY vViéwY, ovTas dvaipny, en,
tovtoy, Ps-Ignat. Hero 6 dvaipny cov,
matdlov mobewov, Synes. Ep. 44 otra
Tijs tepas pidocodias dvaiuny Kat mpoc-
éTL TOV TaLdiwy Toy éuavrov, With
other passages quoted in Wetstein.
So too for dvacAa, dynois, compare
Hur. Med. 1025 sq. amply opoy dva-
oOau... GAdAos ap vpas, & Téxy, é&e-
Opewrapnv, Alc. 333 adrdts d€ maidr’
Tavd oyna evyoua Oeois yeverOat,
Philem. Inc. 64 (Iv. p. 55 Meineke)
ETEKES ME, PTE, Kal YEVOLTO ToL TEK-
vav dvnots, @aomep Kat Oixaoy eoti
oot, Hcclus, xxx. 2 6 raiWevov roy
viov avrov dynoetat em atte (the

21, 22]

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. i

Po) c ra / >’ A e/ 4
TemoOws Ti Umakon wou Eypava ool, Eldws OTL Kal
‘ ¢

eas oN e\ , ,
u7eo a EYyW TolNoels.

J \ \ 4 /
Maua O€ Kal ETOIMACE pot

/ Pen aatedy \ / \ an pe eum
Eeviav’ éArriCw yap OTL Oia TwWY TeOTEVYwY UUwY yxa-

pic Ojcopat vpiv.

only passage in the Lxx where the
word occurs). The prayer dvaipuny cov,
dvaipny vpor, etc., occurs several times
in Ignatius; Polyc.1, 6, Magn. 2, 12,
Ephes.2. It is-not unlikely, that dvai-
pnv here involves a reference to the
name Onesimus; see the note on ver.
11. The Hebrew fondness for playing
on names makes such an allusion at
least possible.

év Kupi@| As he had begotten Phi-
lemon év Kupi (comp. I Cor. iv. 15, 17),
so it was év Kupi that he looked for
the recompense of filial offices. b

dvaravooyv x.t.A.] See the note ver. 7,

21. €ypawa] ‘ I write’: see the note
on ver, 19.

dmép & eyo x«.t.A.] What was the
thought upmost in the Apostle’s mind
when he penned these words? Did
he contemplate the manumission of
Onesimus? If so, the restraint which
he imposes upon himself is signifi-
cant. Indeed throughout this epistle
the idea would seem to be present to
his thoughts, though the word never
passes his lips. This reserve is emi-
nently characteristic of the Gospel.
Slavery is never directly attacked as
such, but principles are inculcated
which must prove fatal to it.

22. dpa dé x.rA.| When St Paul
first contemplated visiting Rome, he
had intended, after leaving the me-
tropolis, to pass westward into Spain;
Rom. xv. 24, 28. But by this time he
appears to have altered his plans, pur-
posing first to revisit Greece and Asia
Minor. Thus in Phil. ii. 24 he looks
forward to seeing the Philippians
shortly; while here he contemplates a
visit to the Churches of the Lycus
valley.

There is a gentle compulsion in this
mention of a personal visit to Colossee.
The Apostle would thus be able to

see for himself that Philemon had not
disappointed his expectations. Simi-
larly Serapion in Hus. HZ. vi. 12
mpooSokaré pe ev TAXEL.

Eeviay| ‘alodging’; comp. Clem.
Hom. xii. 2 mpod€wow tas Eevias érot-
pagovtes. So the Latin parare hospi-
tium Cic. ad Att. xiv. 2, Mart. Ep.
ix. 1. This latter passage, ‘Vale et
para hospitium’, closely resembles St
Paul’s language here. In the expres-
sion before us gevia is probably the
place of entertainment: but in such
phrases as xadeiv emi Eevia, mapaxadeiv
emi Eeviav, hpovritew Eevias, and the
like, it denotes the offices of hospital-
ity. The Latin hospitium also in-
cludes both senses. The €evia, as a
lodging, may denote either quarters
in aninn or a room in a private house:
see Philippians p.9. For the latter
comp. Plato Zim. 20 © mapa Kprriay
mpos tov gevava, ov kal KaTadvoper,
adixopeOa, In this case the response
would doubtless be a hospitable recep-
tion in Philemon’s home; but the
request does not assume so much as
this.

xaptoOnooua| ‘I shall be granted
to you. The grant (xapiferOa) of
one person to another, may be for
purposes either (1) of destruction, as
Acts xxv. II ovdeis pe Svvarat avrois
xapicacGa (comp. ver. 16), or (2) of.
preservation, as Acts iii. 14 yrnca0be
dvipa ova xapiobjva vpiv, and
here.

23—25. ‘Hpaphras my fellow-cap-
tive in Christ Jesus salutes you. As
do also Mark, Aristarchus, Demas,
and Luke, my fellow-labourers. The
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with
thee and thy household, and sanctify
the spirit of you all,

23 sq. For these salutations see
the notes on Col. iv. 108sq. Epaphras

346

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. |

[23—25

3Acmracetai oc Exadpas 6 cuvatypuadwTos pov éy
“~ “~ , “ ~
Xpisto “Incov, **Mapxos, Apiorapyos, Anuas, Aovkas,

ol guvEpyol jou.

5H yapis Tov Kupiou [ijpav] “Inootd Xpurrov pera

~ , ~
TOU TVEUMATOS UMWY.

is mentioned first because he was a
Colossian (Col.iv. 12) and, as the evan-
gelist of Colossze (see p. 29 sq.), doubt-
less well known to Philemon. Of the
four others Aristarchus and Mark be-
longed to the Circumcision (Col. iv. 11)
while Demas and Luke were Gentile
Christians. All these were of Greek
or Asiatic origin and would probably
be well known to Philemon, at least
by name. On the other hand Jesus
Justus, who is honourably mentioned
in the Colossian letter (iv. 11), but

passed over here, may have been a
Roman Christian.

6 guvatypadotos| On the possible
meanings of this title see Col. iv. Io,
where it is given not to Epaphras but
to Aristarchus.

25. ‘H xapis x.7.A.] The same form
of farewell as in Gal. vi. 18; comp.
2 Jim Ay. 22.

vpov| The persons whose names
are mentioned in the opening saluta-
tion.

73s

eT eS ee
aie ts dat ts Ol ado)
af ‘ Pe rw

fey, sie : ahi .
it (Oke i cS at eg ar aa
Seer$s else oo,

15> Meee

‘

DISSERTATIONS.

.

n / bua

> Whee ON gy
baeyes GN “a
weft ’
iene

NW)

Wie,

‘ Peal
abhor & Viney h 7

On some points connected with the Essenes.

i,
THE NAME ESSENE.

ab E
ORIGIN AND AFFINITY OF THE ESSENES.

i,
ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

Be

The name is variously written in Greek : Various
> , aye sae ... forms of
1. "Eoonvos: Joseph. Ant. xiii. 5. 9, xill. 10. 6, XV. 10. 5, XVIll. the name

1. 2, 5, B. J. ii. 8. 2, 13, Vit. 23 Plin. W. H. v. 15. 17 Oreck
(Essenus); Dion Chrys. in Synes. Dion 3; Hippol. Haer.
ix. 18, 28 (Ms éonvos); Epiphan. Haer. p. 28 sq., 127 (ed.
Pet.).
2. “Eooatos: Philo 11. pp. 457, 471, 632 (ed. Mang.); Hegesip-
pus in Euseb. H. ZH. iv. 22; Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. 11. So
too Joseph. B. J. ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, iii. 2.13; Ant. xv. 10. 4;
though in the immediate context of this last passage he
writes "Eoonvos, if the common texts may be trusted.

3. “Oooaios: Epiphan. Haer. pp. 40 sq., 125, 462. The common
texts very frequently make him write ‘Occyvds, but see
Dindorf’s notes, Epiphan. Op. 1. pp. 380, 425. With Epi-
phanius the Essenes are a Samaritan, the Osseans a Judaic
sect. He has evidently got his information from two distinct
sources, and does not see that the same persons are intended.

THE NAME ESSENE.
)

4. ‘Ieooatos, Epiphan. Haer. p. 117. From the connexion the
Same sect again seems to be meant: but owing to the form
Epiphanius conjectures (ofwac) that the name is derived from
Jesse, the father of David.
If any certain example could be produced where the name occurs All etymo-
in any early Hebrew or Aramaic writing, the question of its deriva- rine
tion would probably be settled; but in the absence of a single decisive Which de-

3 é 5 2 oe rive the
Instance a wide field is opened for conjecture, and critics have not name

350 THE ESSENES.

been backward in availing themselves of the license. In discussing
the claims of the different etymologies proposed we may reject:
(i) From First ; derivations from the Greek. Thus Philo connects the word
the Greek; Sith Sotos ‘holy’: Quod omn. prob. 12, p. 457 ‘Eocatot,..duadéxrov |
EAAnviKHs Twapdvypot dawdtyTos, § 13, Pp. 459 Tav “Eooaiwy 7 oily,
Fragm. p. 632 Kxadrodvra pev “Eooatot, rapa ryv oovdtyta, pot Soxd
[Soxet?], rs mpoonyopias awhévres. It is not quite clear whether
Philo is here playing with words after the manner of his master
Plato, or whether he holds a pre-established harmony to exist among
different languages by which similar sounds represent similar things,
or whether lastly he seriously means that the name was directly
derived from the Greek word dovos. The last supposition is the least
probable ; but he certainly does not reject this derivation ‘as incor-
rect’ (Ginsburg Lssenes p. 27), nor can wapwyvpot oovorntos be ren-
dered ‘from an incorrect derivation from the Greek homonym hosiotes’
(ib. p. 32), since the word zapuvupos never involves the notion of false
etymology. The amount of truth which probably underlies Philo’s
statement will be considered hereafter. Another Greek derivation
is ioos, ‘companion, associate,’ suggested by Rapoport, Lrech Millin
p. 41. Several others again are suggested by Lowy, s. v. Hssier, e.g.
éow from their esoteric doctrine, or atoa from their fatalism. All
such may be rejected as instances of ingenious trifling, if indeed
they deserve to be called ingenious.
(ii) From Secondly: derivations from proper names whether of persons or
ae of places. Thus the word has been derived from Jesse the father
places; of David (Epiphan. 1. c.), or from one ‘y Jsai, the disciple of R.
Joshua ben Perachia who migrated to Egypt in the time of Alexander
Janneus (Liw in Ben Chananja I. p. 352). Again it has been
referred to the town Hssa (a doubtful reading in Joseph. Ané. xiii.
Dees) beyond the Jordan. And other similar derivations have been
suggested.
(iii) From Thirdly: etymologies from the Hebrew or Aramaic, which do
eae not supply the right consonants, or do not supply them in the right
AS order. Under this head several must be rejected ;
conso- “DN dsar ‘to bind,’ Adler Volkslehrer vi. p. 50, referred to by
ee Ginsburg Hssenes p. 29.
“DM chasid ‘pious,’ which is represented by “Acidatos (1 Mace.
li. 42 (v. 1.), vil. 13, 2 Mace. xiv. 6), and could not possibly assume

THE ESSENES. 351

the form ’Eacatos or Eoonvos. Yet this derivation appears in Josip-
pon ben Gorion (iv. 6, 7, Vv. 24, pp. 274, 278, 451), who substitutes
Chasidim in narratives where the Essenes are mentioned in the
original of Josephus; and it has been adopted by many more recent
writers.

NMID scha ‘to bathe,’ from which with an Aleph prefixed we
might get *NNDN as’chat ‘bathers’ (a word however which does not
occur): Griitz Gesch. der Juden ul. pp. 82, 468.

YIN tsaniag ‘retired, modest,’ adopted by Frankel (Zedtschrift
1846, p. 449, Monatsschrift 11. p. 32) after a suggestion by Low.

To this category must be assigned those etymologies which con- guch as

tain a } as the third consonant of the root; since the comparison ‘2

which
of the parallel forms "Eocatos and “Econves shows that in the latter righ
word the v is only formative. On this ground we must reject : pa cae

yon chasin ; see below under pwy.

sh chdtsen ‘a fold’ of a garment, and so supposed to signify the
repiCwpa or ‘apron’, which was given to every neophyte among the
Essenes (Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 5, 7): suggested by Jellinek Ben Cha-
nana IV. p. 374.

pwy edshin ‘strong’: see Cohn in Frankel’s IMonatsschrift vu.

p. 271. This etymology is suggested to explain Epiphanius Haer.
Pp. 40 rotro S& Td yevos tav "Oconvav Epynveverar Sia THs éexddcews
Tod ovopatos oriBapov yevos (‘a sturdy race’), The name ‘ Essene’
is so interpreted also in Makrisi (de Sacy, Chrestom. Arab. 1. p. 114,
306) ; but, as he himself writes it with Zlif and not A, it is plain
that he got this interpretation from some one else, probably from
Epiphanius. The correct reading however in Epiphanius is ‘Occaiwy,
not ‘Oococnvdv; and it would therefore appear that this father or his
informant derived the word from the Hebrew root t}y rather than
from the Aramaic jwy. The ‘Oocato. would then be the oy, and this
is so far a possible derivation, that the m does not enter into the root.
Another word suggested to explain the etymology of Epiphanius is the
Hebrew and Aramaic }!0n chasin ‘powerful, strong’ (from jpn) ; but
this is open to the same objections as pwy.

When all such derivations are eliminated as untenable or impro- Other de-
bable, considerable uncertainty still remains. The 1st and 3rd radi- pete .
cals might be any of the gutturals 8, n, mn, ¥; and the Greek o, as the ed:
2nd radical, might represent any one of several Shemitic sibilants.

352

(1) SIDN ‘a
physician’;

THE ESSENES.

Thus we have the choice of the following etymologies, which have
found more or less favour.

(1) NDN dsa ‘to heal,’ whence SDN asyd, ‘a physician.’
The Essenes are supposed to be so called because Josephus states
(B. J. ii. 8. 6) that they paid great attention to the qualities of herbs

and minerals with a view to the healing of diseases (zpos Oepameiav

(2) S30
‘a seer’;

waOcv). This etymology is supported likewise by an appeal to the
name Oepamevrai, which Philo gives to an allied sect in Egypt (de Vit.
Cont. § 1, 11. p. 471). It seems highly improbable however, that the
ordinary name of the Essenes should have been derived from a
pursuit which was merely secondary and incidental; while the sup-
posed analogy of the Therapeutz rests on a wrong interpretation of
the word. Philo indeed (1. c.), bent upon extracting from it as much
moral significance as possible, says, Qepamevrat kat Oepamevtpides Ka-
Aotvrat, Aro. wap ocov iatpikny émayyéANovtat Kpelocova THS Kara
moves (7 pev yop cwpata Oepareder povov, éxeivyn dé Kal Woyas K.7.X.)
} wap ooov ek picews Kal TOY, lepav vopwv eraidevOnoav Oeparevewv
To Ov x.t.A.: but the latter meaning alone accords with the usage of
the word; for Oepaevrys, used absolutely, signifies ‘a worshipper,
devotee,’ not ‘a physician, healer. This etymology of “Eovatos is
ascribed, though wrongly, to Philo by Asaria de’ Rossi (Meor Enayim
3, fol. 33 a) and has been very widely received. Among more recent
writers, who have adopted or favoured it, are Bellermann (Ueber Essder
u. Therapeuten p. 7), Gfrérer (Philo 1. p. 341), Dahne (Lrsch u. Gruber,
s. v.), Baur (Christl. Kirche der drei erst. Jahrh. p. 20), Herzfeld
(Gesch. des Judenthums It. p. 371, 395, 397 8q.), Geiger (Urschrift
p. 126), Derenbourg (Z’Histowre et la Géographie de la Palestine
pp. 170, 175, notes), Keim (Jesus von Nazara I. p. 284 sq.), and
Hamburger (Leal-Lncyclopidie fiir Bibel u. Talmud, s. v.). Several
of these writers identify the Essenes with the Baithusians (}pyn‘n)
of the Talmud, though in the Talmud the Baithusians are connected
with the Sadducees. This identification was suggested by Asaria de’
Rossi (1. c. fol. 33 b), who interprets ‘ Baithusians’ as ‘ the school of the
Essenes’ (8'D°S Ma): while subsequent writers, going a step further,
have explained it ‘the school of the physicians’ (DX m2).

(2) SIM chdza& ‘to see’, whence x'tn chazyd ‘a seer’, in re-
ference to the prophetic powers which the Essenes claimed, as the
result of ascetic contemplation: Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 12 eit dé év adrois

THE ESSENES. 253

oi Kai Ta péAAovTa mpoywooKkew troxvodvra: K.t-A, For instances. of
such Essene prophets see Ant, xiii. 11. 2, Xv. 10. 5, B. J. i. 3. 5, ii. 7.
3. Suidas, s.v. "Eooator, says: Oewpig ta wodkAd rapapévovor, évOev
kat "Eooatou Kadovvrat, Todo SnAodvTos TOD ovdmaTos, TovTéaTL, Jewpn-
vuoi. For this derivation, which was suggested by Baumgarten
(see Bellermann p. 10) and is adopted by Hilgenfeld (Jiid. Apocal.
p. 278), there is something to be said: but Ntn is rather opdy than
Oewpeitv; and thus it must denote the result rather than the process,
the vision which was the privilege of the few rather than the con-
templation which was the duty of all. Indeed in a later paper
(Zeitschr. XI. p. 346, 1868) Hilgenfeld expresses himself doubtfully
about this derivation, feeling the difficulty of explaining the oo
from thet. ‘This is a real objection. In the transliteration of the
LXxx the} is persistently represented by % and the y by o. The
exceptions to this rule, where the manuscript authority is beyond

question, are very few, and in every case they seem capable of ex-
planation by peculiar circumstances.

(3) MWY easah ‘to do, so that ‘Eooato. would signify ‘the (3) ney

doers, the observers of the law,’ thus referring to the strictness of “° bath
Essene practices: see Oppenheim in Frankel’s Monatsschrifé vu.
p- 272 sq. It has been suggested also that, as the Pharisees were
especially designated the teachers, the Essenes were called the ‘doers’
by a sort of antithesis: see an article in Jost’s Annalen 1839, p. 145.
Thus the Talmudic phrase pwyn ‘wx, interpreted ‘men of prac-
tice, of good deeds,’ is supposed to refer to the Essenes (see Frankel’s
Zeitschrift 111. p. 458, Monatsschrift u. p. 70). In some passages indeed
(see Surenhuis Mishna 111. p. 313) it may possibly mean ‘ workers of
miracles’ (as épyov Joh. v. 20, vii. 21, x. 25, etc.); but in this sense
also it might be explained of the thaumaturgic powers claimed by the
Essenes. (See below, p. 362.) On the use which has been made of a
passage in the Aboth of R. Nathan c. 37, as supporting this deriva-
tion, I shall have to speak hereafter. Altogether this etymology has
little or nothing to recommend it.

I have reserved to the last the two derivations which seem to
deserve most consideration.

(4) saiass chast (rfomss ch’sz) or wages chasyo, ‘pious,’ in (4) chasyo
Syriac. This derivation, which is also given by de Sacy (Chrestom. Ba
Arab, 1. p. 347), is adopted by Ewald (Gesch. des V. Isr. 1v. p. 484,

COL. 23

(3) O°
‘ gsilen
cnes.’

NUN
t

THE ESSENES.

ed. 3, 1864, VIL pp. 154, 477, ed. 2, 1859), who abandons in its fa-
vour another etymology (jtn chazzan ‘watcher, worshipper’ = Oepa-
mevtys) Which he had suggested in an earlier edition of his fourth
volume (p. 420). It is recommended by the fact that it resembles
not only in sound, but in meaning, the Greek datos, of which it is a
common rendering in the Peshito (Acts ii. 27, xiii. 35, Tit. i. 8).
Thus it explains the derivation given by Philo (see above, p. 350),
and it also accounts for the tendency to write “Occatos for "Eccatos
in Greek. Ewald moreover points out how an Essenizing Sibylline
poem (Orac. Sib. iv ; see above, p. 96) dwells on the Greek equiva-
lents, eboeBijs, edoeBin, etc. (vv. 26, 35, 42 8q., 148 8q., 162, 165 8q.,
178 sq., ed. Alexandre), as if they had a special value for the
writer ; see Gesch. VII. p. 154, Sibyll. Biicher p. 46. Lipsius (Schenkel’s
Bibel-Lexicon, s. v.) also considers this the most probable etymology.
(5) NWM chasha (also pwn) Heb. ‘to be silent’; whence pxwn
chashshaim ‘the silent ones,’ who meditate on mysteries. Jost (Gesch.
d. Judenth. 1. p. 207) believes that this was the derivation accepted
by Josephus, since he elsewhere (Ant. iii. 7. 5, iii. 8. 9) writes out qwn,
choshen ‘the high-priest’s breast-plate’ (Exod. xxviii. 15 sq.), éoonv or
éoonvns in Greek, and explains it onpaiver totro Kata thv “EXAnvov
yAarrav Aoyeiov (i.e. the ‘place of oracles’ or ‘of reason’: comp. Philo
de Mon. ii. § 5, 11. p. 226, kadetrar Aoyetov éripws, ered) Ta ev otpava
mavta Aoyois Kal dvadoyiats Sednprovpyyrat k.7.A.), aS it is translated
in the txx. Even though modern critics should be right in connect-

ing jn with the Arab. pao ‘ pulcher fuit, ornavit’ (see Gesen. Thes.
p. 535, 8. v.), the other derivation may have prevailed in Josephus’
time. We may illustrate this derivation by Josephus’ description of
the Essenes, B. J. ii. 8. 5 rots eéwOev ws pvotypiov Te ppixtov 7 TOV
évoov owwrn Katadatveror; and perhaps this will also explain the Greek
equivalent Aewpyrixol, which Suidas gives for “Eooato.. The use of
the Hebrew word p'xwn in Mishna Shekalim v. 6, though we need
not suppose that the Essenes are there meant, will serve to show how
it might be adopted as the name of the sect. On this word see Levy
Chaldéisches Worterbuch p. 287. On the whole this seems the most
probable etymology of any, though it has not found so much favour
as the last. At all events the rules of transliteration are entirely
satisfied, and this can hardly be said of the other derivations which
come into competition with it.

II.

\

ORIGIN AND AFFINITIES OF THE ESSENES.

HE ruling principle of the Restoration under Ezra was the isola- The prin-

tion of the Jewish people from all influences of the surrounding omit
nations, Only by the rigorous application of this principle was it Ttion.
possible to guard the nationality of the Hebrews, and thus to preserve
the sacred deposit of religious truth of which this nationality was the
husk. Hence the strictest attention was paid to the Levitical ordi-
nances, and more especially to those which aimed at ceremonial
purity. The principle, which was thus distinctly asserted at the
period of the national revival, gained force and concentration at a
later date from the active antagonism to which the patriotic Jews
were driven by the religious and political aggressions of the Syrian
kings. During the Maccabean wars we read of a party or sect Rise of
called the Chasidim or Asideans (‘Actdaior), the ‘pious’ or ‘devout,’ pasa
who zealous in their observance of the ceremonial law stoutly re-
sisted any concession to the practices of Hellenism, and took their
place in the van of the struggle with their national enemies, the
Antiochene monarchs (1 Mace. ii. 42, vii. 13, 2 Mace. xiv. 6). But,
though their names appear now for the first time, they are not men-
tioned as a newly formed party; and it is probable that they had their
origin at a much earlier date.

The subsequent history of this tendency to exclusiveness and
isolation is wrapt in the same obscurity. At a somewhat later date Phari-
it is exhibited in the Pharisees and the Hssenes,; but whether these mate

were historically connected with the Chasidim as divergent offshoots traced to

of the original sect, or whether they represent independent develop- priuetples
ments of the same principle, we are without the proper data for
deciding. The principle itself appears in the name of the Pharisees,

23—2

356

Foreign

elements
in Esse-
nism.

Frankel’s
theory
well re-
ceived,

THE ESSENES.

which, as denoting ‘separation,’ points to the avoidance of all foreign
and contaminating influences. On the other hand the meaning of
the name Hssene is uncertain, for the attempt to derive it directly
from Chasidim must be abandoned ; but the tendency of the sect is
unmistakeable. If with the Pharisees ceremonial purity was a
principal aim, with the Essenes it was an absorbing passion. It was
enforced and guarded moreover by a special organization. While the
Pharisees were a sect, the Essenes were an order, Like the Pytha-
goreans in Magna Grecia and the Buddhists in India before them,
like the Christian monks of the Egyptian and Syrian deserts after
them, they were formed into a religious brotherhood, fenced about by
minute and rigid rules, and carefully guarded from any contamination
with the outer world.

Thus the sect may have arisen in the heart of Judaism. The
idea of ceremonial purity was essentially Judaic. But still, when we
turn to the representations of Philo and Josephus, it is impossible to
overlook other traits which betoken foreign affinities. Whatever the
Essenes may have been in their origin, at the Christian era at least
and in the Apostolic age they no longer represented the current type
of religious thought and practice among the Jews. This foreign
element has been derived by some from the Pythagoreans, by others
from the Syrians or Persians or even from the farther East; but,
whether Greek or Oriental, its existence has until lately been almost
universally allowed.

The investigations of Frankel, published first in 1846 in his
Zeitschrift, and continued in 1853 in his Monatsschrift, have given
a different direction to current opinion. Frankel maintains that
Hssenism was a purely indigenous growth, that it is only Pharisaism
in an exaggerated form, and that it has nothing distinctive and owes
nothing, or next to nothing, to foreign influences. To establish this
point, he disparages the representations of Philo and Josephus as
coloured to suit the tastes of their heathen readers, while in their
place he brings forward as authorities a number of passages from tal-
mudical and rabbinical writings, in which he discovers references to
this sect. In this view he is followed implicitly by some later
writers, and has largely influenced the opinions of others; while
nearly all speak of his investigations as throwing great light on
the subject.

THE ESSENES. 387

It is perhaps dangerous to dissent from a view which has found but
so much favour; but nevertheless I am obliged to confess my belief oro
that, whatever value Frankel’s investigations may have as contribu- mislead- 3
tions to our knowledge of Jewish religious thought and practice, they 4
throw little or no light on the Essenes specially ; and that the blind
acceptance of his results by later writers has greatly obscured the
distinctive features of this seot. I cannot but think that any one,
who will investigate Frankel’s references and test his results step by
step, will arrive at the conclusion to which I myself have been led,
that his talmudical researches have left our knowledge of this sect
where it was before, and that we must still refer to Josephus and
Philo for any precise information respecting them. |

Frankel starts from the etymology of the name. He supposes His double
that "Eocatos, "Econvds, represent two different Hebrew words, the rch
former !pn chdsid, the latter piyy tsaniaz, both clothed in suit- name.
able Greek dresses’. Wherever therefore either of these words
occurs, there is, or there may be, a direct reference to the
Exsenes. |

It is not too much to say that these etymologies are impossible ; Fatal ob-
and this for several reasons. (1) The two words ‘Eocatos, “Eooy- j, car Ge
vos, are plainly duplicate forms of the same Hebrew or Aramaic
original, like Sapiatos and Sapyyyves (Epiphan. Haer. pp. 40, 47,
127, and even Sapwirys p. 46), Nafwpaios and Nalapnros, Turraios
and Turrynvés (Steph. Byz. s. v., Hippol. Her. vi. 7), with which we
may compare Boorpaios and Boorpyyvds, Meduraios and Mediryvds, and
numberless other examples. (2) Again; when we consider either
word singly, the derivation offered is attended with the most serious
difficulties. There is no reason why in “Eocatos the d should have
disappeared from chasid, while it is hardly possible to conceive that
tsanuag should have taken such an incongruous form as “"Eoonvés.
(3) And lastly ; the more important of the two words, chasid, had
already a recognised Greek equivalent in "Acidatos; and it seems
highly improbable that a form so divergent as "Eacaios should have
taken its place.

Indeed Frankel’s derivations are generally, if not universally, Depend-

abandoned by later writers; and yet these same writers repeat his the the3i?

1 Zeitschrift p.449 ‘Fiir Essder liegt, nach einer Bemerkung des Herrn L.
wie schon yon anderen Seiten bemerkt Léw im Orient, das Hebr. yi2¥ nahe’;
wurde, das Hebr. pn, fiir Hssener, seealsopp. 454,455; Monatsschriftp.32,

358

on the
deriva-
tion.

The term
chasid
not ap-
plied
specially
to the
Eissenes.

THE ESSENES.

quotations and accept his results, as if the references were equally valid,
though the name of the sect has disappeared. They seem to be
satisfied with the stability of the edifice, even when the foundation
is undermined. Thus for instance Gritz not only maintains after
Frankel that the Essenes ‘were properly nothing more than station-
ary or, more strictly speaking, logically consistent (consequente)
Chasidim,’ and ‘that therefore they were not so far removed from the
Pharisees that they can be regarded as a separate sect,’ and ‘accepts
entirely these results’ which, as he says, ‘rest on critical inves-
tigation’ (111. p. 463), but even boldly translates chasiduth ‘the
Essene mode of life’ (ib. 84), though he himself gives a wholly
different derivation of the word ‘ Essene,’ making it signify ‘ washers’
or ‘baptists’ (see above, p. 351). And even those who do not go to
this length of inconsistency, yet avail themselves freely of the
passages where chasid occurs, and interpret it of the Essenes, while
distinctly repudiating the etymology’.

But, although “Eocatos or ’"Eoonves is not a Greek form of chasid,
it might still happen that this word was applied to them as an
epithet, though not asa proper name. Only in this case the refer-
ence ought to be unmistakeable, before any conclusions are based
upon it. But in fact, after going through all the passages, which
Frankel gives, it is impossible to feel satisfied that in a single in-
stance there is a direct allusion to the Essenes. Sometimes the word
seems to refer to the old sect of the Chasidim or Asideans, as for
instance when Jose ben Joezer, who lived during the Maccabean war,
is called a chasid*, At all events this R. Jose is known to have
been a married man, for he is stated to have disinherited his children
(Baba Bathra 133 6); and therefore he cannot have belonged to the
stricter order of Essenes. Sometimes it is employed quite generally
to denote pious observers of the ceremonial law, as for instance
when it is said that with the death of certain famous teachers the
Chasidim ceased*. In this latter sense the expression D’}wson ODN,
‘the ancient or primitive Chasidim’ (Monatsschr. pp. 31, 62), is perhaps
used ; for these primitive Chasidim again are mentioned as having

1 e.g, Keim (p. 286) and Derenbourg JF rankel’s own account of this R. Jose
(p. 166, 461 8q.), who both derive in an earlier volume, Monatsschr. 1.
Essene from S'DN ‘a physician.’ P- 405 sq.

2 Mishna Chagigah ii. 7; Zeitschr. 3 Zeitschr. p. 457, Monatsschr. p. 69
p. 454, Monatsschr. pp. 33, 62. See sq.; see below, p. 362.

THE ESSENKS.

wives and children’, and it appears also that they were scrupulously
exact in bringing their sacrificial offerings”. Thus it is impossible to
identify them with the Essenes, as described by Josephus and Philo.
Even in those passages of which most has been made, the reference

is more than doubtful. Thus great stress is laid on the saying of R. —

Joshua ben Chananiah in Mishna Sotah iii. 4, ‘The foolish chasid and
the clever villain (ayy pwn NYIW DN), etc., are the ruin of the world.’
But the connexion points to a much more general meaning of chasid,

and the rendering in Surenhuis, ‘ Homo pius qui insipiens, improbus

qui astutus,’ gives the correct antithesis. So we might say that
there is no one more mischievous than the wrong-headed conscientious
man. It is true that the Gemaras illustrate the expression by ex-
amples of those who allow an over-punctilious regard for external
forms to stand in the way of deeds of mercy. And perhaps rightly.
But there is no reference to any distinctive Essene practices in the
illustrations given. Again; the saying in Mishna Pirke Aboth v.
10, ‘He who says Mine is thine and thine is thine is [a] chasid
(von abv abun qbw »Sw), is quoted by several writers as though it
referred to the Essene community of goods*. But in the first place
the idea of community of goods would require, ‘Mine is thine and
thine is mine’: and in the second place, the whole context, and
especially the clause which immediately follows (and which these
writers do not give), ‘He who says Thine is mine and mine is
mine is wicked (yw), show plainly that 4pm must be taken in its
general sense ‘pious,’ and the whole expression implies not recipro-
cal interchange but individual self-denial.

1 Niddah 38 a; see Lowy s.v. Es- supposes, reciprocation or community
sier. of goods, substituting ‘Thine is mine’

2 Mishna Kerithuth vi. 3, Nedarim
10 a; see Monatsschr. p. 65.

3 Thus Gratz (111 p. 81) speaking of
the community of goods among the
Essenes writes, ‘From thisview springs
the proverb; Every Chassid says; Mine
and thine belong to thee (not me)’ thus
giving a turn to the expression which
in its original connexion it does not
at all justify. Of the existence of such
a proverb I have found no traces. It
certainly is not suggested in the pas-
sage of Pirke Aboth. Later in the vo-
lume (p. 467) Griitz tacitly alters the
words to make them express, as he

for ‘Thine is thine’ in the second
clause; ‘The Chassid must have no
property of his own, but must treat
it as belonging to the Society (ssy
son ‘sw soy 7bw). At least, as he
gives no reference, I suppose that he
refers to the same passage. This very
expression ‘ mine is thine and thine is
mine’ does indeed occur previously
in the same section, but it is applied
as a formula of disparagement to the
gam haarets (see below p. 366), who
expect to receive again as much as they
give. In this loose way Gratz treats
the whole subject. Keim (p. 294)

360

Possible
connexion
of chasid
and chasyo
discussed.

THE ESSENES.

It might indeed be urged, though this is not Frankel’s plea, that
supposing the true etymology of the word “Eocatos, “Eaonvos, to be
the Syriac peas, raSass, ch’st, chasyo (a possible derivation),
chasid might have been its Hebrew equivalent as being similar
in sound and meaning, and perhaps ultimately connected in deriva-
tion, the exactly corresponding triliteral root xpn (comp. pjn) not
being in use in Hebrew’. But before we accept this explanation
we have a right to demand some evidence which, if not demonstra-
tive, is at least circumstantial, that chasid is used of the Essenes :
and this we have seen is not forthcoming. Moreover, if the Essenes
had thus inherited the name of the Chasidim, we should have ex-
pected that its old Greek equivalent “Acidato., which is still used
later than the Maccabeean era, would also have gone with it; rather
than that a new Greek word ‘Eocatos (or ‘Eaoyves) should have been

invented to take its place. But indeed the Syriac Version of the

Usage is
unfavour-
able to
this view.

Frankel’s
second
derivation
tsanuag

consider-
ed.

Old Testament furnishes an argument against this convertibility of
the Hebrew chasid and the Syriac chasyo, which must be regarded as
almost decisive. The numerous passages in the Psalms, where the
expressions ‘My chasidim,’ ‘His chasidim, occur (xxx. 5, Xxxi. 24,
Sxeval 28, Uu-o4, | lesix ey xxx, 0, seul. 1c, ¢xviy 15, 0x xxi.
exlix. 9: comp. xxxii. 6, cxlix. 1, 5), seem to have suggested the
assumption of the name to the original Asideans. But in such
passages 3'Dm is commonly, if not universally, rendered in the
Peshito not by rAa99, r<28a99, but by a wholly different word -ms x4
zadik, And again, in the Books of Maccabees the Syriac rendering
for the name “Actoato., Chasidim, is a word derived from another
quite distinct root. These facts show that the Hebrew chasid and
the Syriac chasyo were not practically equivalents, so that the one
would suggest the other; and thus all presumption in favour of a
connexion between ’Acidatos and “Eooatos is removed.

Frankel’s other derivation yyy, tsantiag, suggested as an equi-
valent to “Eaonves, has found no favour with later writers, and
indeed is too far removed from the Greek form to be tenable.
Nor do the passages quoted by him? require or suggest any allusion
quotes the passage correctly, butrefers by the later Jews because the Syrian
it nevertheless to Essene communism. ssenes means exactly the same as

1 This is Hitzig’s view (Geschichte ‘Hasidim.’”

des Volkes Israel p. 427). He main- 2 Zeitschr. pp. 455, 457; Monatsschr.
tains that ‘‘they were called ‘Hasidim’ pp. 32.

THE ESSENES. 361

to this sect. Thus in Mishna Demai, vi. 6, we are told that the
school of Hillel permits a certain license in a particular matter, but
it is added, ‘The syyyy of the school of Hillel followed the pre-
cept of the school of Shammai.’ Here, as Frankel himself confesses,
the Jerusalem Talmud knows nothing about Essenes, but explains
the word by "w>, ie. ‘upright, worthy’’; while elsewhere, as he
allows’, it must have this general sense. Indeed the mention of the
‘school of Hillel’ here seems to exclude the Essenes,- In its com-
prehensive meaning it will most naturally be taken also in the other
passage quoted by Frankel, Kiddushin 71 a, where it is stated that
the pronunciation of the sacred name, which formerly was known to
all, is now only to be divulged to the p'yyyy, i.e. the discreet, among
the priests ; and in fact it occurs in reference to the communication
of the same mystery in the immediate context also, where it could
not possibly be treated as a proper name; 49) *YNI TOW WIT PIS,
‘who is discreet and meek and has reached middle age,’ etc. _
Of other etymologies, which have bsen suggested, and through Other sup.
which it might be supposed the Essenes are mentioned by name in posed. ety-

mologies
the Talmud, x'px, asya, ‘a physician,’ is the one which has found in the

most favour. For the reasons given above (p. 352) this derivation ey ae
seems highly improbable, and the passages quoted are quite insufli- mee
cient to overcome the objections. Of these the strongest is in the

Talm, Jerus. Yoma iii. 7, where we are told that a certain physician

(tox) offered to communicate the sacred name to R. Pinchas the not sup-
son of Chama, and the latter refused on the ground that he ate of heed
the tithes—this being regarded as a disqualification, apparently sages
because it was inconsistent with the highest degree of ceremonial ec er
purity®. The same story is told with some modifications in Midrash

Qoheleth iii. 11*. Here Frankel, though himself (as we have seen)
adopting a different derivation of the word ‘ Essene,’ yet supposes

that this particular physician belonged to the sect, on the sole ground

that ceremonial purity is represented as a qualification for the
initiation into the mystery of the Sacred Name. Lowy (1.c.) denies

that the allusion to the tithes is rightly interpreted: but even sup-

posing it to be correct, the passage is quite an inadequate basis either

1 Monatsschr. p. 32. Derenbourg p. 170 sq.
2 Zeitschr. p. 455. 4 See Lowy Krit.-Talm. Lex. 8. v.
3 Frankel Monatsschr. p. 71: comp. Essaer,

362 THE ESSENES.

for Frankel’s conclusion that this particular physician was an Essene,
or for the derivation of the word Essene which others maintain. Again,
in the statement of Talm. Jerus. Kethuboth ii. 3, that correct manu-
scripts were called books of px’, the word As? is generally taken as
a proper name. But even if this interpretation be false, there is abyo-
lutely nothing in the context which suggests any allusion to the
Essenes*, In like manner the passage from Sanhedrin 99 6, where
a physician is mentioned *, supports no such inference. Indeed, as
this last passage relates to the family of the Asi, he obviously can
have had no connexion with the celibate Essenes.

Hitherto our search for the name in the Talmud has been unsuc-
cessful, One possibility however still remains. The talmudical
writers speak of certain pwyp ‘wax ‘men of deeds’; and if (as some
suppose) the name Essene is derived from wy have we not here the
mention which we are seeking? Frankel rejects the etymology,

but presses the identification *.

(2) gasah
‘to do.’

The expression, he urges, is often
used in connexion with chasidim. It signifies ‘miracle workers,’
and therefore aptly describes the supernatural powers supposed to be
exercised by the Essenes®’, Thus we are informed in Mishna Sotah ix.
15, that ‘When R. Chaninah ben Dosa died, the men of deeds ceased ;
when R, Jose Ketinta died, the chasidim ceased.’ In the Jerusalem
Talmud however this mishna is read, ‘With the death of R. Cha-
ninah ben Dosa and R. Jose Ketinta the chasidim ceased’ ; while the
Gemara there explains R. Chaninah to have been one of the sy»yse
mwyp. Thus, Frankel concludes, ‘the identity of these with npn
becomes still more plain.’ Now it seems clear that this expression
Mwyp wos in some places cannot refer to miraculous powers, but
must mean ‘men of practical goodness,’ as for instance in Succaé,
51 a, 53 a4; and being a general term expressive of moral excellence,
it is naturally connected with chasidim, which is likewise a general

1 Urged in favour of this derivation
by Herzfeld 11. p. 398.

2 The oath taken by the Essenes
(Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 7) currnpyoerv...
Ta THs alpécews avTav BiBNia can have
nothing to do with accuracy in tran-
seribing copies, as Herzfeld (11. pp. 398,
407) seemstothink. The natural mean-
ing of cuvrnpetv, ‘to keep safe or close’
and so ‘not to divulge’ (e.g. Polyb.

XXxi. 6. 5 ovx é&€pawe THv éauTAs yvo-
Lqv ada ouverhper tap’ éavT7j), is also
the meaning suggested here by the
context.

3 The passage is adduced in support
of this derivation by Derenbourg p.
175.
4 See Zeitschr. p. 438, Monatsschr.
pp. 68—7o.

5 See above, p. 353.

THE ESSENES.

term expressive of piety and goodness. Nor is there any reason why
it should not always be taken in this sense. It is true that stories
are told elsewhere of this R. Chaninah, which ascribe miraculous
powers to him’, and hence there is a temptation to translate it ¢ won-
der-worker,’ as applied to him. But the reason is quite insufficient.
Moreover it must be observed that R. Chaninah’s wife is a promi-
nent person in the legends of his miracles reported in Taanith 246;
and thus we need hardly stop to discuss the possible meanings of
MvYD ‘wo, since his claims to being considered an Essene are barred
at the outset by this fact’.

It has been asserted indeed by a recent author, that one very
ancient Jewish writer distinctly adopts this derivation, and as dis-
tinctly states that the Essenes were a class of Pharisees*. If this
were the case, ‘Frankel’s theory, though not his etymology, would
receive a striking confirmation: and it is therefore important to
enquire on what foundation the assertion rests.

363

Dr Ginsburg’s authority for this statement is a passage from The =
the Aboth of Rabbi Nathan, c. 37, which, as he gives it, appears pom this
conclusive ; ‘There are eight kinds of Pharisees...and those Phari- derivation

sees who live in celibacy are Essenes.’
of the case? Jirst; This book was certainly not written by its
reputed author, the R. Nathan who was vice-president under the
younger Gamaliel about a.p. 140. It may possibly have been
founded on an earlier treatise by that famous teacher, though even
this is very doubtful: but in its present form it is a comparatively
On this point all or almost all recent writers

Secondly ; Dr Ginsburg has taken

modern work.
on Hebrew literature are agreed‘.
the reading »xwy inpind, without even mentioning any alternative.
Whether the words so read are capable of the meaning which he
has assigned to them, may be highly questionable; but at all events
this cannot have been the original reading, as the parallel passages,

1 Taanith 24 b, Yoma 53 b; see Su-
renhuis Mishna ut. p. 313.

2 In this and similar cases it is un-
necessary to consider whether the per-
sons mentioned might have belonged
to those looser disciples of Essenism,
who married (see above, p. 85): be-
cause the identification is meaningless
unless the strict order were intended.

8 Ginsburg in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia

8. V., I. p. 829: comp. Essenes pp. 22,

28.

4 e.g. Geiger Zeitschrift f. Jiidische
Theologie vi. p. 20 sq.; Zunz Gottes-
dienstliche Voririige p. 108 sq.: comp.
Steinschneider Catal. Heb. Bibl. Bod.
col. 2032 8q. These two last references
are given by Dr Ginsburg himself,

traced to
But what are the Siok an error.

——

ee ey ae

ot >
ee a

_— “~~~

264 THE ESSENES.

Babl. Sotah fol. 22 b, Jerus. Sotah v. 5, Jerus. Berakhoth ix. 5,
(quoted by Buxtorf and Levy, s.v. wp), distinctly prove. In
Babl. Sotah l.c., the corresponding expression is AIwYN) 'NDIN AD
“What is my duty, and I will do it,’ and the passage in Jerus.
Berakhoth \.c. is to the same effect. These parallels show that
the reading powysxi ‘nin mp must be taken also in Aboth c. 37,
so that the passage will be rendered, ‘The Pharisee who says, What
is my duty, and I will do it.’ Thus the Essenes and celibacy dis-
appear together. Lastly ; Inasmuch as Dr Ginsburg himself takes a
wholly different view of the name Essene, connecting it either with
yyn ‘an apron,’ or with x’pn ‘ pious’,’ it is difficult to see how he could
translate »~wy ‘Essene’ (from xwy ‘to do’) in this passage, except
on the supposition that R. Nathan was entirely ignorant of the
orthography and derivation of the word Essene. Yet, if such igno-
rance were conceivable in so ancient a writer, his authority on this
question would be absolutely worthless. But indeed Dr Ginsburg
would appear to have adopted this reference to R. Nathan, with the
reading of the passage and the interpretation of the name, from
some other writer*. At all events it is quite inconsistent with
his own opinion as expressed previously.

Are the But, though we have not succeeded in finding any direct mention
ne to, Of this sect by name in the Talmud, and all the identifications
oa of the word Essene with diverse expressions occurring there
the Tal. have failed us on examination, it might still happen that allusions
mud? to them were so frequent as to leave no doubt about the persons
meant. Their organisation or their practices or their tenets might
be precisely described, though their name was suppressed. Such
allusions Frankel finds scattered up and down the Talmud in great
profusion.
(1) The (1) He sees a reference to the Essenes in the syn chdbira or
sopeaae ‘Society,’ which is mentioned several times in talmudical writers *
ciate. The chdaber (nan) or ‘ Associate’ is, he supposes, a member of this
brotherhood. He is obliged to confess that the word cannot always
have this sense, but still he considers this to be a common desig-

1 Essenes p. 30; comp. Kitto’s Cy- 1862, no. 33, p. 459, a reference pointed
clopaedia, 8. v. Eissenes. out to me by a friend.

2 It is given by Landsberg in the 3 Zeitschr. p. 450 8q-, Monatsschr.
Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums pp. 31, 70.

THE ESSENES. 365

nation of the Essenes. The chaber was bound to observe certain
rules of ceremonial purity, and a period of probation was imposed

b upon him before he was admitted. ‘With this fact Frankel connects

the passage in Mishna Chagigah ii. 5, 6, where several degrees of cere-
monial purity are specified. Having done this, he considers that he

has the explanation of the statement in Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 7, 10),

that the Essenes were divided into four different grades or orders
according to the time of their continuance in the ascetic practices
demanded by the sect.

But in the first place there is no reference direct or indirect A passage

to the chaber, or indeed to any organisation of any kind, in the eek gh

gigah con-
passage of Chagigah. It simply contemplates different degrees of sidered.

purification as qualifying for the performance of certain Levitical i
rites in an ascending scale. There is no indication that these
lustrations are more than temporary and immediate in their applica-
tion ; and not the faintest hint is given of distinct orders of men,
each separated from the other by formal barriers and each demand-
ing a period of probation before admission from the order below,

as was the case with the grades of the Essene brotherhood described

ss hee

by Josephus. Moreover the orders in Josephus are four in number’,

1 As the notices in Josephus (B. J.
ii. 8) relating to this point have been
frequently misunderstood, it may be
well once for all to explain his, mean-
ing. The grades of the Essene order
are mentioned in two separate notices,
apparently, though not really, discord-
ant. (1) In § 10 he says that they are
‘divided into four sections according
to the duration of their discipline’
(Suppyvrae Kard xpdovov THs aoKhcews
els polpas récoapas), adding that the
older members are considered to be
defiled by contact with the younger,
i.e, each superior grade by contact
with the inferior, So far his meaning
is clear. (2) In § 8 he states that one
who is anxious to become a member of
the sect undergoes a year’s probation,
submitting to. discipline but ‘remain-
ing outside.’ Then, ‘after he has given
evidence of his perseverance (uerd ri
Ths xapreplas érléeéw), his character
is tested for two years more; and, if
found worthy, he is accordingly ad-

mitted into the society.’ A comparison
with the‘other passage shows that
these two years comprise the period
spent in the second and third grades,
each extending over a year. After
passing through these three stages in
three successive years, he enters upon
the fourth and highest grade, thus
becoming a perfect member.

It is stated by Dr Ginsburg (Essenes
p. 12 8q., comp. Kitto’s Cyclopaedia
8.v. p. 828) that the Essenes passed
through eight stages ‘from the be-
ginning of the noviciate to the achieve-
ment of the highest spiritual state,’
this last stage qualifying them, like
Elias, to be forerunners of the Mes-
siah, But it is a pure hypothesis that

the Talmudical notices thus combined’ -

have anything to do with the Essenes ;
and, as I shall have occasion to point
out afterwards, there is no ground for
ascribing to this sect any Messianic
expectations whatever,

366

Difference
between

the chaber

and the
Essene,

THE ESSENES.

while the degrees of ceremonial purity in Chagigah are five. Frankel
indeed is inclined to maintain that only four degrees are intended
in Chagigah, though this interpretation is opposed to the plain sense
of the passage. But, even if he should be obliged to grant that the
number of degrees is five’, he will not surrender the allusion to the
Hssenes, but meets the difficulty by supposing (it is a pure hypothesis)
that there was a fifth and highest degree of purity among the Essenes,
to which very few attained, and which, as I understand him, is not
mentioned by Josephus on this account. But enough has already
been said to show, that this passage in Chagigah can have no con-
nexion with the Essenes and gives no countenance to Frankel’s
VIews.

Ag this artificial combination has failed, we are compelled to
fall back on the notices relating to the chaber, and to ask whether
these suggest any connexion with the account of the Essenes in
Josephus. And the facts oblige us to answer this question in the
negative. Not only do they not suggest such a connexion, but they
are wholly irreconcilable with the account in the Jewish historian.
This association or confraternity (if indeed the term is applicable
to an organisation so loose and so comprehensive) was maintained
for the sake of securing a more accurate study and a better ob-
servance of the ceremonial law. Two grades of purity are men-
tioned in connexion with it, designated by different names and pre-
senting some difficulties’, into which it is not necessary to enter here.
A. chaber, it would appear, was one who had entered upon the
second or higher stage. or this a period of a year’s probation was
necessary. “The chaber enrolled himself in the presence of three
others who were already members of the association. This ap-
parently was all the formality necessary : and in the case of a teacher
even this was dispensed with, for being presumably acquainted with
the law of things clean and unclean he was regarded as ex officio
a chaber. The chaber was bound to keep himself from ceremonial
defilements, and was thus distinguished from the ,am haarets
or common people*; but he was under no external surveillance and

1 Zeitschr. p. 452, note, sion; see e.g. Herzfeld 11. p. 390 8q.,
2 The entrance into the lower grade Frankel Monatsschr. p. 33 sq.
was described as ‘taking D335’ or 3 The contempt with which a chaber

‘wings.’ The meaning of thisexpression would look down upon the vulgar herd,
has been the subject of much‘discus- the gam haarets, finds expression in

a i

THE ESSENES. 367

decided for himself as to his own purity. Moreover he was, or
might be a married man: for the doctors disputed whether the
wives and children of an associate were not themselves to be
regarded as associates’, In one passage, Sanhedrin 41 a, it is even
assumed, as a matter of course, that a woman may be an associate
(m72n). In another (Widdah 33 6)? there is mention of a Sadducee
and even of a Samaritan as a chaber. An organisation so flexible as
this has obviously only the most superficial resemblances with the
rigid rules of the Essene order; and in many points it presents a
direct contrast to the characteristic tenets of that sect.
(2) Having discussed Frankel’s hypothesis respecting the chaber, (2) The
I need hardly follow his speculations on the Béné-hakkéneseth, ried bericy
non 73, ‘sons of the congregation’ (Zabim ili. 2), in which ex-
pression probably few would discover the reference, which he finds,
to the lowest of the Essene orders’.
(3) But mention is also made of a ‘holy congregation’ or ‘as- (3) The

, : - _ ‘holy con-
sembly’ (xwitp xdnp, nwap my) ‘in Jerusalem’; and, following gregation -
Rapoport, Frankel sees in this expression also an allusion to the - ne
Kssenes *, The grounds for this identification are, that in one pas-
sage (Berakhoth 9 b) they are mentioned in connexion with prayer at
daybreak, and in another (Midrash Qoheleth ix. 9) two persons are
stated to belong to this ‘holy congregation,’ because they divided
their day into three parts, devoting one-third to learning, another
to prayer, and another to work. The first notice would suit the
Essenes very well, though the practice mentioned was not so distinc-
tively Essene as to afford any safe ground for this hypothesis. Of
the second it should be observed, that no such division of the day is
recorded of the Essenes, and indeed both Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 5)
and Philo (/ragm. p. 633) describe them as working from morning
till night with the single interruption of their mid-day meal*®, But

= So

the language of the Pharisees, Joh, vii.
49 0 &xdos odTOS O Bh YwwHoKw Tov
vowov émaparot eilow. Again in Acts
iv. 13, where the Apostles are de-
scribed as léu@ra, the expression is
equivalent to gam haarets. See the
passages quoted in Buxtorf, Lez. p.
1626.

1 All these particulars and others
may be gathered from Bekhoroth 30 6,
Mishna Demai ii. 2. 3, Jerus. Demai

li. 3, v. 1, Tosifta Demai 2, Aboth R.
Nathan ¢. 41.

2 See Herzfeld 11. p. 386.

3 Monatsschr. p. 35.

* Zeitschr. pp. 458, 461, Monatsschr.
PP- 32, 34-

5 It is added however in Midrash
Qoheleth ix. g ‘Some say that they
(the holy congregation) devoted the
whole of the winter to studying the
Scriptures and the summer to work.’

368

not an
Essene
commu-
nity.

(4) The
Vathikin.

(5) The
‘ primitive
elders.’

(6) The
‘morning
bathers.’

THE ESSENES.

in fact the identification is beset with other and more serious diffi-
culties. For this ‘holy congregation’ at Jerusalem is mentioned long
after the second destruction of the city under Hadrian’, when on
Frankel’s own showing’ the Essene society had in all probability
ceased to exist. And again certain members of it, e.g. Jose ben
Meshullam (Mishna Bekhoroth iii. 3, vi. 1), are represented as uttering
precepts respecting animals fit for sacrifice, though we have it on
the authority of Josephus and Philo that the Essenes avoided the
temple sacrifices altogether. The probability therefore seems to be
that this ‘holy congregation’ was an assemblage of devout Jews .
who were drawn to the neighbourhood of the sanctuary after the
destruction of the nation, and whose practices were regarded with
peculiar reverence by the later Jews*.

(4) Neither can we with Frankel* discern any reference to the
Essenes in those }*p'ni Vathzkin, ‘pious’ or ‘learned’ men (whatever
may be the exact sense of the word), who are mentioned in Berakhoth
9 6 as praying before sunrise; because the word itself seems quite
general, and the practice, though enforced among the Essenes, as
we know from Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 5), would be common to all
devout and earnest Jews. If we are not justified in saying that
these }p’n} were ndt Essenes, we have no sufficient grounds for
maintaining that they were.

(5) Nor again can we find any such reference in the ppt
Diwan or ‘primitive elders’.’ It may readily be granted that this
term is used synonymously, or nearly so, with Down ODN
‘the primitive chasidim’; but, as we failed to see anything more
than a general expression in the one, so we are naturally led to
take the other in the same sense. The passages where the expression
occurs (e.g. Shabbath 64 6) simply refer to the stricter observances
of early times, and do not indicate any reference to a particular
society or body of men.

_ (6) Again Frankel finds another reference to this sect in the
nvinw Say Zoble-shachdrith, or ‘morning-bathers,’ mentioned in
Tosifta Yadayim c. 2°. The identity of these with the 7pepoBa-
atictat of Greek writers seems highly probable. The latter how-
ever, though they may have had some affinities with Essene practices

1 Monatsschr. p. 32. 4 Monatsschr. p. 32.
2 1b. p. 70. 5 Monatsschr. pp. 32, 68.
3 See Derenbourg p. 175. © Tb. D.67.

THE ESSENES.

and tenets, are nevertheless distinguished from this sect wherever
they are mentioned’, But the point to be observed is that, even

_ though we should identify these Toble-shacharith with the Essenes,

the passage in Tosifta Yadayim, so far from favouring, is distinctly
adverse to Frankel’s view which regards the Essenes as only a branch
of Pharisees: for the two are here represented as in direct an-
tagonism. The Toble-shacharith say, ‘ We grieve over you, Pharisees,
because you pronounce the (sacred) Name in the morning without
having bathed.’ The Pharisees retort, ‘We grieve over you, Toble-
shacharith, because you pronounce the Name from this body in which
is impurity.’

369

(7) In connexion with the Toble-shacharith we may consider (7) The

another name, Bandim (O°8)3), in which also Frankel discovers
an allusion to the Essenes*» In Mishna Mikvaoth ix. 6 the word
is opposed to 13 bdr, ‘an ignorant or stupid person’; and this
points to its proper meaning ‘the builders, i.e. the edifiers or
teachers, according to the common metaphor in Biblical language.
The word is discussed in Shabbath 114 and explained to mean
‘learned.’ But, because in Mikvaoth it is mentioned in connexion
with ceremonial purity, and because in Josephus the Essenes are
stated to have carried an ‘axe and shovel’ (B. J. ii. 8. 7, 9), and be-
cause moreover the Jewish historian in another place (Vit. 2) mentions
having spent some time with one Banus a dweller in the wilderness,
who lived on vegetables and fruits and bathed often day and night
for the sake of purity, and who is generally considered to have been
an Essene ; therefore Frankel holds these Banaim to have been Es-
senes. This is a specimen of the misplaced ingenuity which distin-
guishes Frankel’s learned speculations on the Essenes, Josephus does

Banaim.

not mention an ‘axe and shovel,’ but an axe only (§ 7 déwdpiov), Josephus

which he afterwards defines more accurately as a spade (§ 9 rf emerge

oKanidt, rovotrov yap éote TO Siddpevov im avrav aéwwidioy Tots veoov-
orarots) and which, as he distinctly states, was given them for the
purpose of burying impurities out of sight (comp. Deut. xxiii, 12—14).
Thus it has no connexion whatever with any ‘building’ implement.
And again, it is true that Banus has frequently been regarded as
an Essene, but there is absolutely no ground for this supposition.
On the contrary the narrative of Josephus in his Life seems to
1 See below, p. 406. 2 Zeitsch. p. 455.
col, 24

370

Another
derivation
of Bana-
im.

Results of
this inves-
tigation.

Philo and
Josephus
our main
authori-
ties.

Frankel’s
deprecia-
tion of
them is
unreason-
able, and
explains
nothing.

THE ESSENES.

exclude it, as I shall have occasion to show hereafter’. I should add
that Sachs interprets Banaim ‘the bathers,’ regarding the explanation
in Shabbath |. c. as a ‘later accommodation’.’ This seems to me very
improbable ; but, if it were conceded, the Banaim would then ap-
parently be connected not with the Essenes, but with the Hemero-
baptists.

From the preceding investigation it will have appeared how
little Frankel has succeeded in establishing his thesis that ‘the
‘talmudical sources are acquainted with the Essenes and make
mention of them constantly*.’ We have seen not only that no
instance of the name Essene has been produced, but that all those
passages which are supposed to refer to them under other designa-
tions, or to describe their practices or tenets, fail us on closer exa-
mination. In no case can we feel sure that there is any direct
reference to this sect, while in most cases such reference seems to be
excluded by the language or the attendant circumstances*. Thus we are
obliged to fall back upon the representations of Philo and Josephus.
Their accounts are penned by eye-witnesses. They are direct and
explicit, if not so precise or so full as we could have wished. The
writers obviously consider that they are describing a distinct and
exceptional phenomenon. And it would be a reversal of all esta-
blished rules of historical criticism to desert the solid standing-
ground of contemporary history for the artificial combinations and
shadowy hypotheses which Frankel would substitute in its place.

But here we are confronted with Frankel’s depreciation of these
ancient writers, which has been echoed by several later critics. They
were interested, it is argued, in making their accounts attractive
to their heathen contemporaries, and they coloured them highly
for this purpose*’, We may readily allow that they would not be
uninfluenced by such a motive, but the concession does not touch the
main points at issue. This aim might have led Josephus, for example,
to throw into bold relief the coincidences between the Essenes and
Pythagoreans ; it might even have induced him to give a semi-pagan

1 See below, p. 4or. senes in our patristic (i.e. rabbinical)

2 Beitrdge 1. p. 199. In this deri- literature,’ says Herzfeld truly (nu.
vation he is followed by Graetz (111. p. 397), ‘has led to a splendid hypo-
p. 82, 468) and Derenbourg (p. 166). thesis-hunt (einer stattlichen Hypo-

3 Monatsschr. p. 31. thesenjagd).’

4 «The attempt to point out the Es- 5 Bionatsschr. p. 31.

THE ESSENES. 371°

4 tinge to the Essene doctrine of the future state of the blessed (B. J.
ii, 8. 11). But it entirely fails to explain those peculiarities of the
a sect which marked them off by a sharp line from orthodox Judaism,
t and which fully justify the term ‘separatists’ as applied to them
by a recent writer. In three main features especially the portrait of
, the Essenes retains its distinctive character unaffected by this con-

sideration.
ut - (i) How, for instance, could this principle of accommodation have (i) The
Y led both Philo and Josephus to lay so much stress on their divergence hig
from Judaic orthodoxy in the matter of sacrifices? Yet this is poe
perhaps the most crucial note of heresy which is recorded of the for,
Essenes. What was the law to the orthodox Pharisee without the
sacrifices, the temple-worship, the hierarchy? Yet the Essene
declined to take any part in the sacrifices; he had priests of his own
independently of the Levitical priesthood. On Frankel’s hypothesis
that Essenism is merely an exaggeration of pure Pharisaism, no ex-
planation of this abnormal phenomenon can be given. Frankel does
indeed attempt to meet the case by some speculations respecting the
red heifer’, which are so obviously inadequate that they have not
been repeated by later writers and may safely be passed over in
silence here. On this point indeed the language of Josephus is not The no.
quite explicit. He says (Ant. xviii. 1. 5) that, though they send rae a
offerings (avafyyara) to the temple, they perform no sacrifices, and and Philo
he assigns as the reason their greater strictness as regards ceremonial sidered.
purity (Svadopornte ayvedv as vopifoev), adding that ‘for this
reason being excluded from the common sanctuary (repevioparos)
they perform their sacrifices by themselves (éf’ avrav tds Ouvcias
ériteXovor).” Frankel therefore supposes that their only reason for
abstaining from the temple sacrifices was that according to their
severe notions the temple itself was profaned and therefore unfit for
sacrificial worship. But if so, why should it not vitiate the offerings,
as well as the sacrifices, and make them also unlawful? And indeed,
where Josephus is vague, Philo is explicit. Philo (um. p. 457) dis-
tinctly states that the Essenes being more scrupulous than any in the
worship of God (év tots padtora Oeparevrai @cod) do not sacrifice ani-
mals (ov da xarafvovres), but hold it right to dedicate their own hearts
as & worthy offering (aN tepompemcis tds éavrady Stavolas karacKevalew

% Monatsschr, 64.

24—2

372 3 THE ESSENES.

agiodvres). Thus the greater strictness, which Josephus ascribes to them,
consists in the abstention from shedding blood, as a pollution in
itself, And, when he speaks of their substituting private sacrifices,
his own qualifications show that he does not mean the word to be
taken literally. Their simple meals are their sacrifices; their refec-
tory is their sanctuary ; their president is their priest’. It should be
added also that, though we once hear of an Essene apparently within
the temple precincts (B. J. i. 3. 5, Ané. xiii. 11. 2)*, no mention is
ever made of one offering sacrifices, Thus it is clear that with the
Their Hssene it was the sacrifices which polluted the temple, and not the
ial temple which polluted the sacrifices. And this view is further re-

ments con-

ae by commended by the fact that it alone will explain the position of
rid a their descendants, the Christianized Essenes, who condemned the

Christian

Sah Stee slaughter of victims on grounds very different from those alleged

in the Epistle to the Hebrews, not because they have been super-
seded by the Atonement, but because they are in their very nature
repulsive to God; not because they have ceased to be right, but
because they never were right from the beginning.

It may be said indeed, that such a view could not be main-
tained without impugning the authority, or at least disputing the
integrity, of the Old Testament writings. The sacrificial system is
so bound up with the Mosaic law, that it can only be rejected
by the most arbitrary excision. This violent process however,
uncritical as it is, was very likely to have been adopted by the
Essenes*, As a matter of fact, it did recommend itself to those
Judaizing Christians who reproduced many of the Essene tenets, and
who both theologically and historically may be regarded as the lineal

The Cle- - descendants of this Judaic sect*, Thus in the Clementine Homilies,
Saati an Ebionite work which exhibits many Essene features, the chief
justify spokesman St Peter is represented as laying great stress on the duty

this doc- she re ‘
fae of distinguishing the true and the false elements in the current

1 BJ. ii. 8. 5 xabdrep els dyidv re 8.9, 10). The Christian Essenes how-
réuevos mapaylvovrat 7d demvyripioy: ever did combine both these incongru-
see also the passages quoted above p. ous tenets by the expedient which is
89, note 3. explained in the text. Herzfeld him-

2 See below, p. 379. self suggests that allegorical interpre-

3 Herzfeld (11. p. 403) is unable to tation may have been employed to
reconcile any rejection of the Old Tes- justify this abstention from the temple
tament Scriptures with the reverence sacrifices.
paid to Moses by the Hssenes (B. J. ii. * See Galatians, p. 322 8q.

THE ESSENES. 373

Scriptures (ii. 38, 51, iii. 4, 5, 10, 42, 47, 49, 50, comp. xviii. 19). The arbitrary
saying traditionally ascribed to our Lord, ‘Show yourselves approved ur Pees:
money-changers’ (yiveoOe tpameCirar Séxpor), is more than once quoted Seriptures.
by the Apostle as enforcing this duty (il. 51, iil 50, xviii. 20).
Among these false elements he places all those passages which repre-

sent God as enjoining sacrifices (iii. 45, xviii. 19). It is plain, so he
argues, that God did not desire sacrifices, for did He not kill those

who lusted after the taste of flesh in the wilderness? and, if the
slaughter of animals was thus displeasing to Him, how could He
possibly have commanded victims to be offered to Himself (iii. 45) ?

It is equally clear from other considerations that this was no part

of God’s genuine law. For instance, Christ declared that He came

to fulfil every tittle of the Law; yet Christ abolished sacrifices (iii.

51). And again, the saying ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice’ is

a condemnation of this practice (iii. 56). The true prophet ‘ hates
sacrifices, bloodshed, libations’; he ‘extinguishes the fire of altars’

(iii. 26). The frenzy of the lying soothsayer is a mere intoxication
produced by the reeking fumes of sacrifice (iii. 13). "When in the
immediate context of these denunciations we find it reckoned among

the highest achievements of man ‘to know the names of angels, to

drive away demons, to endeavour to heal diseases by charms (dap-

paxiats), and to find incantations (éraodas) against venomous ser-

pents (ili. 36)’; when again St Peter is made to condemn as false Essene _
those scriptures which speak of God swearing, and to set against them Pe dei
Christ’s command ‘Let your yea be yea’ (iii. 55); we feel how
thoroughly this strange production of Ebionite Christianity is satu-

rated with Essene ideas’.

1 Epiphanius (Her. xviii. 1, p. 38) mardépwv yeyevficbat. Here we have in

again describes, as the account was
handed down to him (ss 6 els quas é\9av
meptéxet AOyos), the tenets of a Jewish
sect which he calls the Nasareans, air}v
58 ob rapedéxero Thy mevrdrevxov, dAdd
wporovyer pev Tov Mwiicéa, cal dre édé-
taro vouobeclay émlarever, od ravrny dé
gnow, dd érépav, oOev ra ev mdvTa
gudatrovet TSv "Icvdalwy Iovdatoe bytes,
Ovolav 5 ovK €0vov otre éupixuwr
MeTELXOVY, GAA AOEwTOY Av map aidrois
Td KpeGv perahapBavew 7 Ovordjev ad-
tous. tpackoy yap wemAdoOar Taira
Ta BiBrla wal undev rovrav bd trav

combination all the features which we
are seeking. The cradle of this sect
is placed by him in Gilead and Bashan
and ‘the regions beyond the Jordan.’
He uses similar language also (xxx. 18,
p. 142) in describing the Ebionites,
whom he places in much the same
localities (naming Moab also), and
whose Essene features are unmistake-
able: ore yap déxovra: Thy wevrdrevxov
Mwicéws SAnv adda Tia phyara a7o-
BardXovow. srav 5 adrois elrys rept
éuyuxwv Bodcews x.7.. These parallels
will speak for themselves.

374 THE ESSENES.

(ii) The (ii) Nor again is Frankel successful in explaining the Essene
cae prayers to the sun by rabbinical practices’, Following Rapoport,
fa eee he supposes that Josephus and Philo refer to the beautiful hymn
not be ex- Of praise for the creation of light and the return of day, which
eas forms part of the morning-prayer of the Jews to the present
time’, and which seems to be enjoined in the Mishna itself*; and
this view has been adopted by many subsequent writers. But the
language of Josephus is not satisfied by this explanation. For
he says plainly (B. J. ii. 8. 5) that they addressed prayers to the
sun*, and it is difficult to suppose that he has wantonly intro-
duced a dash of paganism into his picture ; nor indeed was there
any adequate motive for his doing so, Similarly Philo relates of the
Therapeutes (Vit. Cont. 11, 11. p. 485), that they ‘stand with their
faces and their whole body towards the East, and when they see that
the sun is risen, holding out their hands to heaven they pray for
a happy day (evnmepiav) and for truth and for keen vision of reason
(ogvwriav Noyiopod). And here again it is impossible to overlook
the confirmation which these accounts receive from the history of
certain Christian heretics deriving their descent from this Judaic sect.

The Samp- Epiphanius (Her. xix. 2, xx. 3, pp. 40 sq., 47) speaks of a sect
Oa Hakene called the Sampseeans or ‘Sun-worshippers’,’ as existing in his
Bect, own time in Perea on the borders of Moab and on the shores of
the Dead Sea. He describes them as a remnant of the Ossenes
(i.e. Essenes), who have accepted a spurious form of Christianity
and are neither Jews nor Christians. This debased Christianity
which they adopted is embodied, he tells us, in the pretended
revelation of the Book of Elchasai, and dates from the time of
Trajan®. Elsewhere (xxx. 3, p. 127) he seems to use the terms
Sampsean, Ossene, and Elchasaite as synonymous (rapa tots Zapyiby-
vois kal ‘Oconvots kat ’EAkeroatos Kahovpévois). Now we happen to
know something of this book of Elchasai, not only from Epiphanius
himself (xix. 1 sq., p. 40 sq., Xxx. 17, p. 141), but also from Hippo-
as appears lytus (Her. ix. 13 sq.) who describes it at considerable length. From
ee these accounts it appears that the principal feature in the book

sacred

ala was the injunction of frequent bathings for the remission of sins

1 Zeitschr. p. 458. 4 See above, p. 87, note 1.
2 See Ginsburg Essenes p. 69 sq. 5 See above, p. 83.
3 Berakhoth i. 4; see Derenbourg, § Galatians p. 3248q. See also be-

p. 1698q. ' low, p. 407.

THE ESSENES. 375

(Hipp. Her. ix. 13, 15 sq.). We are likewise told that it ‘anathema-
tizes immolations and sacrifices (@vcias kat iepovpyias) as being alien
to God and certainly not offered to God by tradition from (é) the
fathers and the law,’ while at the same time it ‘says that men ought
to pray there at Jerusalem, where the altar was and the sacrifices
(were offered), prohibiting the eating of flesh which exists among
the Jews, and the rest (of their customs), and the altar and the fire,
as being alien to God’ (Epiph. Her. xix. 3, p. 42). Notwithstanding,
we are informed that the sect retained the rite of circumcision, the Its Essene
observance of the sabbath, and other practices of the Mosaic law bigest
(Hipp. Her. ix. 14; Epiph. Her. xix. 5, p. 43, comp. xxx. 17,
p. 141). This inconsistency is explained by a further notice in
Epiphanius (1. c.) that they treated the Scriptures in the same
way as the Nasareans’; that is, they submitted them to a process of
arbitrary excision, as recommended in the Clementine Homilies,
and thus rejected as falsifications all statements which did not. square
with their own theory. Hippolytus also speaks of the Elchasaites
as studying astrology and magic, and as practising charms and
incantations on the sick and the demoniacs (§ 14). Moreover in two
formularies, one of expiation, another of purification, which this
father has extracted from the book, invocation is made to ‘the holy
spirits and the angels of prayer’ (§ 15, comp. Epiph. Her. xix. 1), It
should be added that the word Elchasai probably signifies the ‘ hidden
power’*; while the book itself directed that its mysteries should be
guarded as precious pearls, and should not be communicated to the
world at large, but only to the faithful few (Hipp. Her. ix.15,17). It
is hardly necessary to call attention to the number of Essene features
which are here combined®, I would only remark that the value of
the notice is not at all diminished, but rather enhanced, by the uncri-
tical character of Epiphanius’ work ; for this very fact prevents us
from ascribing the coincidences, which here reveal themselves, to this

father’s own invention.

_ 1 See p. 372, note 3.

2 Galatians p. 325, note 1. For
another derivation see below, p. 407.

3 Celibacy however is not one of
these: comp. Epiphan, Her. xix. 1 (p.
40) dwexOdvera 5¢ rH mwapOevig, poet
6é rip éyxpdreav, dvayKkage. 5¢ yduovr.

In this respect they departed from the
original principles of Essenism, alleg-
ing, as it would appear, a special reve-

lation (ds 590ev droxadv ews) in justifi--

cation. In like manner marriage is
commended in the Clementine Ho-
milies,

376

Doubtful
bearing of
this Sun-
worship.

The
practice
repugnant
to Jewish
orthodoxy.

(iii) The
deprecia-
‘tion of
marriage
not ac-
counted
for.

THE ESSENES.

In this heresy we have plainly the dregs of Essenism, which
has only been corrupted from its earlier and nobler type by the
admixture of a spurious Christianity. But how came the Essenes
to be called Sampseeans? What was the original meaning of this
outward reverence which they paid to the sun? Did they regard it
merely as the symbol of Divine illumination, just as Philo frequently
treats it as a type of God, the centre of all light (eg. de Somn.
i, 13 8q., IL p. 631 sq.), and even calls the heavenly bodies ‘ visible
and sensible gods’ (de Mund. Op. 7,1. p. 6)'? Or did they honour
the light, as the pure ethereal element in contrast to gross terrestrial
matter, according to a suggestion of a recent writer’? Whatever may
have been the motive of this reverence, it is strangely repugnant to
the spirit of orthodox Judaism. In Ezek. viii. 16 it is denounced as
an abomination, that men shall turn towards the east and worship
the sun; and accordingly in Berakhoth 7a a saying of R. Meir is
reported to the effect that God is angry when the sun appears and the
kings of the East and the West prostrate themselves before this
luminary*, We cannot fail therefore to recognise the action of some
foreign influence in this Essene practice—whether Greek or Syrian or
Persian, it will be time to consider hereafter.

(iii) On the subject of marriage again, talmudical and rabbinical
notices contribute nothing towards elucidating the practices of this
sect. Least of all do they point to any affinity between the Essenes
and the Pharisees. The nearest resemblance, which Frankel can
produce, to any approximation in this respect is an injunction in
Mishna Kethuboth v. 8 respecting the duties of the husband in pro-
viding for the wife in case of his separating from her, and this he
ascribes to Essene influences*; but this mishna does not express any
approval of such a separation. The direction seems to be framed
entirely in the interests of the wife: nor can I see that it is at all

inconsistent, as Frankel urges, with Mishna Kethuboth vii. 1 which

allows her to claim a divorce under such circumstances. But how-
ever this may be, Essene and Pharisaic opinion stand generally in the
sharpest contrast to each other with respect to marriage. The talmudic

1 The important place which the 2 Keim 1. p. 289. -
heavenly bodies held in the system 3 See Wiesner Schol, zum Badyl.
of Philo, who regarded them as ani- JTalm.1. pp. 18, 20.
mated beings, may be seen from * Monatsschr. p. 37.
Gfrorer’s Philo I. p. 349 sq.

THE ESSENES. 377

writings teem with passages implying not only the superior sanctity,
but even the imperative duty, of marriage. The words ‘ Be fruitful
and multiply’ (Gen. i. 28) were regarded not merely as a promise,
but as a command which was binding on all. It is a maxim of the
i Talmud that ‘Any Jew who has not a wife is no man’ (O48 43x),
; Yebamoth 63a. The fact indeed is so patent, that any accumula-
tion of examples would be superfluous, and I shall content myself
with referring to Pesachim 113 4, 6, as fairly illustrating the doctrine
of orthodox Judaism on this point’. As this question affects the
whole framework not only of religious, but also of social life, the
antagonism between the Essene and the Pharisee in a matter so
vital could not be overlooked. |

(iv) Nor again is it probable that the magical rites and incan- (iv) The
tations which are so prominent in the practice of the Essenes would, aoine
as a rule, have been received with any favour by the Pharisaic Jew. priors
In Mishna Pesachim iv. 9 (comp. Berakhoth 10 6) it is mentioned difficulty.
with approval that Hezekiah put away a ‘book of healings’ ; where

doubtless the author of the tradition had in view some volume of

charms ascribed to Solomon, like those which apparently formed part
of the esoteric literature of the Essenes*. In the same spirit in Mishna .
Sanhedrin xi. 1 R. Akiba shuts out from the hope of eternal life
any ‘who read profane or foreign (i.e. perhaps, apocryphal) books,
and who mutter over a wound’ the words of Exod. xv. 26. On
this point of difference however no great stress can be laid. Though
the nobler teachers among the orthodox Jews set themselves stead-
fastly against the introduction of magic, they were unable to resist
the inpouring tide of superstition. In the middle of the second
century Justin Martyr alludes to exorcists and magicians among
the Jews, as though they were neither few nor obscure*, Whether
these were a remnant of Essene Judaism, or whether such practices

1 Justin Martyr more than once
taunts the Jewish rabbis with their
reckless encouragement of polygamy.
See Dial. 134, p. 363 D, Tots dovréros
kai ruprots Scdackddos budy, otrives Kat
péxpe viv kal récoapas kal wévte exe
buds yuvatkas Exacrov ovyxwpodor Kal
éav eBuopdov tis lady éwiOuujoy adrijs
K.T.A., ib. 141, P. 371 A, B, dzrotov
mparrovow ol dard Tod yévous vuwv dy-

Opwrot, kara macay viv evOa av éridny-
MiTwow 4 mporrenPpla@ow ayduevor dvo-
pare yduou yuvatxas x.7.d., With Otto’s
note on the first passage.

2 See above, p. gr, note 2.

3 Dial. 85, p. 311 ©, 75 wévroe ol ef
Uuav éropkioral rH Téxvy, Gomep Kal ra
€0vn, xpwmpevor étopkitoves Kab Oupsdpace
kal karadécpos xpavra.

378 | THE ESSENES.

had by this time spread throughout the whols body, it is impossible
to say; but the fact of their existence prevents us from founding
an argument on the use of magic, as an absolutely distinctive feature
of Essenism. |

General Other divergences also have been enumerated’; but, as these do

result. not for the most part involve any great principles, and refer only to
practical details in which much fluctuation was possible, they cannot
under any circumstances be taken as crucial tests, and I have not
thought it worth while to discuss them. But the antagonisms on
which I have dwelt will tell their own tale. In three respects more
especially, in the avoidance of marriage, in the abstention from the
temple sacrifices, and (if the view which I have adopted be correct) in
the outward reverence paid to the sun, we have seen that there is
an impassable gulf between the Essenes and the Pharisees. No
known influences within the sphere of Judaism proper will serve
to account for the position of the Essenes in these respects ; and
we are obliged to look elsewhere for an explanation.

Beankel It was shown above that the investigations of Frankel and others
oe failed to discover in the talmudical writings a single reference to the
blishing Hssenes, which is at once direct and indisputable. It has now
eo appeared that they have also failed (and this is the really important
point) in showing that the ideas and practices generally considered
characteristic of the Essenes are recognised and incorporated in these
representative books of Jewish orthodoxy ; and thus the hypothesis
that Essenism was merely a type, though an exaggerated type, of
pure Judaism falls to the ground.
Affinities Some affinities indeed have been made out by Frankel and by
LL hai those who have anticipated or followed him. But these are exactly
and Phari- such as we might have expected. Two distinct features combine to
pa ie ~ make up the portrait of the Essene. The Judaic element is quite
ae as prominent in this sect as the non-Judaic. It could not be more
strongly emphasized than in the description given by Josephus him-
self. In everything therefore which relates to the strictly Judaic
side of their tenets and practices, we should expect to discover not
only affinities, but even close affinities, in talmudic and rabbinic
authorities, And this is exactly what, as a matter of fact, we do

1 Herzfeld, 11. p. 392 sq.

THE ESSENES. 379

find. The Essene rules respecting the observance of the sabbath,
the rites of lustration, and the like, have often very exact parallels
in the writings of more orthodox Judaism, But I have not thought
it necessary to dwell on these coincidences, because they may well
be taken for granted, and my immediate purpose did not require me
to emphasize them.

And again; it must be remembered that the separation between The di-
Pharisee and Essene cannot always have been so great as it appears (70°
in the Apostolic age, Both sects apparently arose out of one great pases
movement, of which the motive was the avoidance of pollution’, The Pharisees
divergence therefore must have been gradual. At the same time, it Stadual.
does not seem a very profitable task to write a hypothetical history
of the growth of Essenism, where the data are wanting; and I shall
therefore abstain from the attempt. Frankel indeed has not been
deterred by this difficulty ; but he has been’ obliged to assume his
data by postulating that such and such a person, of whom notices
are preserved, was an Hssene, and thence inferring the character
of Essenism at the period in question from his recorded sayings or
doings. But without attempting any such reconstruction of history,
we may fairly allow that there must have been a gradual develop-
ment ; and consequently in the earlier stages of its growth we should
not expect to find that sharp antagonism between the two sects, which
the principles of the Essenes when fully matured would involve.

If therefore it should be shown that the talmudical and rabbinical Hence the
writings here and there preserve with approval the sayings of certain ae rer
Essenes, this fact would present no difficulty. At present however no ab ting,
decisive example has been produced ; and the discoveries of Jellinek cords of.
for instance*, who traces the influence of this sect in almost every orthodox
page of Pirke Aboth, can only be regarded as another illustration of

the extravagance with which the whole subject has been treated by

a large section of modern Jewish writers. More to the point is a

notice of an earlier Essene preserved in Josephus himself. We learn

from this historian that one Judas, a member of the sect, who had
prophesied the death of Antigonus, saw this prince ‘ passing by through

the temple*,’ when his prophecy was on the point of fulfilment

__ 1 See above, p. 355 sq. In the parallel narrative, Ant. Xii.
' % Orient 1849, pp. 489; 537, 553+ 11. 2, the expression is mapidvra 7d
3B. J. i 3. 5 mapiovra da Tod lepod. lepov, which does not imply so much;

380 THE ESSENKS.

(about B.c. 110). At this moment Judas is represented as sitting
in the midst of his disciples, instructing them in the science of pre-
diction. The expression quoted would seem to imply that he was
actually teaching within the temple area. Thus he would appear
not only as mixing in the ordinary life of the Jews, but also as
frequenting the national sanctuary. But even supposing this to be
the right explanation of the passage, it will not present any serious
difficulty. Even at a later date, when (as we may suppose) the
principles of the sect had stiffened, the scruples of the Essene were
directed, if I have rightly interpreted the account of Josephus, rather
against the sacrifices than against the locality’, The temple itself,
independently of its accompaniments, would not suggest any offence
to his conscience.
The appro- Nor again, is it any obstacle to the view which is here maintained,
ch ae that the Essenes are regarded with so much sympathy by Philo and
oe Josephus themselves. Even though the purity of Judaism might
dence of have been somewhat sullied in this sect by the admixture of foreign
orthodoxy. elements, this fact would attract rather than repel an eclectic like
Philo, and a latitudinarian like Josephus. The former, as an Alexan-
drian, absorbed into his system many and diverse elements of heathen
philosophy, Platonic, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The latter, though
professedly a Pharisee, lost no opportunity of ingratiating himself
with his heathen conquerors, and would not be unwilling to gratify
their curiosity respecting a society with whose fame, as we infer from
the notice of Pliny, they were already acquainted.

What was But if Essenism owed the features which distinguished it from
the foreign
element in

Essenism? influences derived? From the philosophers of Greece or from the
religious mystics of the East? On this point recent writers are
divided.

Theory of Those who trace the distinctive characteristics of the sect to

Settle Greece, regard it is an offshoot of the Neopythagorean School grafted

fluence. on the stem of Judaism. This solution is suggested by the state-

ment of Josephus, that ‘they practise the mode of life which among

Pharisaic Judaism to an alien admixture, whence were these foreign

but the less precise notice must be that Judas himself was within the
interpreted by the more precise. Even temple area.
then however it is not directly stated ? See above, pp. 89, 371 sq.

THE ESSENES. 381

the Greeks was introduced (xaradederypévy) by Pythagoras’.’ It is
thought to be confirmed by the strong resemblances which as a
matter of fact are found to exist between the institutions and prac-
tices of the two.

This theory, which is maintained also by other writers,.as for Statement
instance by Baur and Herzfeld, has found its ablest and most per- bea by
sistent advocate in Zeller, who draws out the parallels with great Zeller.
force and precision. ‘The Essenes,’ he writes, ‘like the Pythagoreans,
desire to attain a higher sanctity by an ascetic life; and the absten-
tions, which they impose on themselves for this end, are the same
with both. They reject animal food and bloody sacrifices; they
avoid wine, warm baths, and oil for anointing ; they set a high value
on celibate life: or, so far as they allow marriage, they require that
it be restricted to the one object of procreating children. Both wear
only white garments and consider linen purer than wool. Washings
and purifications are prescribed by both, though for the Essenes they
have a yet higher significance as religious acts. Both prohibit oaths
and (what is more) on the same grounds, Both find their social
ideal in those institutions, which indeed the Essenes alone set them-
selves to realise—in a corporate life with entire community of goods,
in sharply defined orders of rank, in the unconditional submission
of all the members to their superiors, in a society carefully barred
from without, into which new members are received only after a
severe probation of several years, and from which the unworthy are
inexorably excluded. Both require a strict initiation, both desire
to maintain a traditional doctrine inviolable; both pay the highest
respect to the men from whom it was derived, as instruments of
the deity : yet both also love figurative clothing for their doctrines,
and treat the old traditions as symbols of deeper truths, which they
must extract from them by means of allegorical explanation. In
order to prove the later form of teaching original, newly-composed
writings were unhesitatingly forged by the one as by the other,
and fathered upon illustrious names of the.past. Both parties pay
honour to divine powers in the elements, both invoke the rising
sun, both seek to withdraw everything unclean from his sight, and
with this view give special directions, in which they agree as well
with each other as with older Greek superstition, in a remarkable

1 Ant. XV. 10. 4.

382 THE ESSENES.

way. For both the belief in intermediate beings between God and
the world has an importance which is higher in proportion as their
own conception of God is purer; both appear not to have disdained
magic; yet both regard the gift of prophecy as the highest fruit of
wisdom and piety, which they pique themselves on possessing in
their most distinguished members. Finally, both agree (along with
the dualistic character of their whole conception of the world...) in
their tenets respecting the origin of the soul, its relation to the body,
and the life after death’...’
Absence of ‘This array of coincidences is formidable, and thus skilfully
aa marshalled might appear at first sight invincible. But a closer
rean fea- examination detracts from its value. In the first place the two
turesinthe ,. .. .,. sia i
Essences, distinctive characteristics of the Pythagorean philosophy are wanting
to the Essenes. The Jewish sect did not believe in the trans-

migration of souls; and the doctrine of numbers, at least so far as:

our information goes, had no place in their system, Yet these con-
stitute the very essence of the Pythagorean teaching. In the next
place several of the coincidences are more apparent than real. Thus
The coin- for instance the demons who in the Pythagorean system held an
cidences intermediate place between the Supreme God and man, and were the

are in
some cases result of a compromise between polytheism and philosophy, have no

ae near relation to the angelology of the Essenes, which arose out of a
wholly different motive. Nor again can we find distinct traces among
the Pythagoreans of any such reverence for the sun as is ascribed to
the Essenes, the only notice which is adduced having no prominence
whatever in its own context, and referring to a rule which would
be dictated by natural decency and certainly was not peculiar to the
Pythagoreans*, When these imperfect and (for the purpose) value-
less resemblances have been subtracted, the only basis on which the
theory of a direct affiliation can rest is withdrawn, All the re-
maining coincidences are unimportant. Thus the respect paid to
founders is not confined to any one sect or any one age. The
reverence of the Essenes for Moses, and the reverence of the

1 Zeller Philosophie der Gricchen Life of Apollonius by Philostratus (e.g.
Th. m1. Abth. 2, p. 281. vi. 10) considerable stress is laid on

2 Diog. Laert. vili. 17; see Zeller the worship of the sun (Zeller 1. c. p,
1. ce. p. 282, note 5. The precept in 137, note 6); but the syncretism of
question occurs among a number of this late work detracts from its value ag
insignificant details, and has no spe- representing Pythagorean doctrine.
cial prominence given to it, In the

eS

THE ESSENES. | 383

‘Pythagoreans. for Pythagoras, are indications of a common humanity,
but not of a common philosophy. And again the forgery of suppo-
sititious documents is unhappily not the badge of any one school.
The Solomonian books of the Essenes, so far as we can judge from
the extant notices, were about as unlike the tracts ascribed to
Pythagoras and his disciples by the Neopythagoreans as two such
forgeries could well be. All or nearly all that remains in common
to the Greek school and the Jewish sect after these deductions is
a certain similarity in the type of life. But granted that two bodies and in

; : ‘ others do
of men each held an esoteric teaching of their own, they would not suggest
secure it independently in a similar way, by a recognised process of roa oe
initiation, by a solemn form of oath, by a rigid distinction of orders, connexion.
Granted also, that they both maintained the excellence of an ascetic
life, their asceticism would naturally take the same form ; they would
avoid wine and flesh ; they would abstain from anointing themselves
with oil; they would depreciate, and perhaps altogether prohibit,
marriage, Unless therefore the historical conditions are themselves
favourable to a direct and immediate connexion between the Pytha-
goreans and the Essenes, this theory of affiliation has little to
recommend it.

And a closer examination must pronounce them to be most Twofold
unfavourable. Chronology and geography alike present serious eee
obstacles to any solution’ which derives the peculiarities of the theory.
Essenes from the Pythagoreans.

(i) The priority of time, if it can be pleaded on either side, must (i) Chro-
be urged in favour of the Essenes. The Pythagoreans as a philo- Papers a
sophical school entirely disappear from history before the middle of adverse.
the fourth century before Christ. The last Pythagoreans were
scholars of Philolaus and Eurytus, the contemporaries of Socrates and
Plato’. For nearly two centuries after their extinction we hear
nothing of them. Here and there persons like Diodorus of Aspendus Disappear-
are satirised by the Attic poets of the middle comedy as ‘pytha- rae poly
gorizers,’ in other words, as total abstainers and vegetarians’; but 8°reans.

1 Zeller 1. c. p. 68 (comp. 1. p. 242). 2 Athen. iv. p. 161, Diog. Laert.
While disputing Zeller’s position, I viii. 37. See the index to Meineke
have freely made use of his references. Fragm. Com. s. vv. mv@ayoptkds, etc.
It is impossible not to admire the The words commonly used by these
mastery of detail and clearness of ex- _satirists are rv9ayopitew, mudayopioThs,
position in this work, even when the vvayopicuds. The persons so satirised
conclusions seem questionable. were probably in many cases not more

284 | THE ESSENES,

the philosophy had wholly died or was fast dying out. This is the
universal testimony of ancient writers. It is not till the first century
before Christ, that we meet with any distinct traces of a revival.
In Alexander Polyhistor', a younger contemporary of Sulla, for the
first time we find references to certain writings, which wonld seem
to have emanated from this incipient Neopythagoreanism, rather than
from the elder school of Pythagoreans. And a little later Cicero
commends his friend Nigidius Figulus as one specially raised up to
revive the extinct philosophy*, But so slow or so chequered was
its progress, that a whole century after Seneca can still speak of the
Priority of school as practically defunct*, Yet long before this the Essenes
ag eR formed a compact, well-organized, numerous society with a peculiar
thagorean- system of doctrine and a definite rule of life. We have seen that
eae Pliny the elder speaks of this celibate society as having existed
‘through thousands of ages*.’ This is a gross exaggeration, but it
must at least be taken to imply that in Pliny’s time the origin of the
Essenes was lost in the obscurity of the past, or at least seemed so to
those who had not access to special sources of information. If, as
I have given reasons for supposing*, Pliny’s authority in this passage
is the same Alexander Polyhistor to whom I have just referred,
and if this particular statement, however exaggerated in expression,
is derived from him, the fact becomes still more significant. But
on any showing the priority in time is distinctly in favour of the
Essenes as against the Neopythagoreans,
The Es- And accordingly we find that what is only a tendency in the
pee Neopythagoreans is with the Essenes an avowed principle and a
more than definite rule of life. Such for instance is the case with celibacy, of

the Neopy-

thagorean, Which Pliny says that it has existed as an institution among the

Essenes per seculorum milia, and which is a chief corner-stone of

Pythagoreans than modern teetotallers torem non invenit.’

are Rechabites, 4 N.H.v.15. The passage is quoted
1 Diog. Laert. vili. 24.8q.; see Zeller abovep.85,note 3. The point of time,
lc. p. 74—78.- at which Josephus thinks it necessary

2 Cic. Tim. 1 ‘sic judico, post illos to insert an account of the Essenes as
nobiles Pythagoreos quorum disci- already flourishing (Ant. xiii. §. 9), is
plina extincta est quodammodo, cum prior to the revival of the Neopytha-
aliquot secula in Italia Siciliaque vi- gorean school. How much earlier the
guisset, hune exstitisse qui illam reno- Jewish sect arose, we are without data
varet.’ for determining.

3 Sen. NV. Q. vii. 32 ‘ Pythagorica 5 See p. 83, note r.
illa invidiosa turbe schola prmcep-

THE ESSENES.

their practical system. The Pythagorean notices (whether truly or not,
it is unimportant for my purpose to enquire) speak of Pythagoras as
having a wife and a daughter’. Only at a late date do we find the

385

attempt to represent their founder in another light ; and if virginity »

is ascribed to Apollonius of Tyana, the great Pythagorean of the first
Christian century, in the fictitious biography of Philostratus’*, this
representation is plainly due to the general plan of the novelist, whose
hero is perhaps intended to rival the Founder of Christianity, and
whose work is saturated with Christian ideas. In fact virginity can
never be said to have been a Pythagorean principle, though it may
have been an exalted ideal of some not very early adherents of the
school. And the same remark applies to other resemblances between
the Essene and Neopythagorean teaching. The clearness of con-
ception and the definiteness of practice are in almost every instance
on the side of the Essenes; so that, looking at the comparative
chronology of the two, it will appear almost inconceivable that they
can have derived their principles from the Neopythagoreans,

(ii) But the geographical difficulty also, which this theory of
affiliation involves, must be added to the chronological. The home
of the Essene sect is allowed on all hands to have been on the
eastern borders of Palestine, the shores of the Dead Sea, a region
Jeast of all exposed to the influences of Greek philosophy. It is
true that we find near Alexandria a closely allied school of Jewish
recluses, the Therapeutes ; and, as Alexandria may have been the
home of Neopythagoreanism, a possible link of connexion is here
disclosed. But, as Zeller himself has pointed out, it is not among
the Therapeutes, but among the Essenes, that the principles in
question appear fully developed and consistently carried out®; and
therefore, if there be a relation of paternity between Essene and
Therapeute, the latter must be derived from the former and not
conversely. How then can we suppose this influence of Neopytha-
goreanism brought to bear on a Jewish community in the south-
eastern border of Palestine? Zeller’s answer is as follows*, Judea
was for more than a hundred and fifty years before the Maccabean
period under the sovereignty first of the Egyptian and then of the

1 Diog. Laert. viii. 42. had been differently represented by
2 Vit. Apol. i. 15 sq. At the same others. k

time Philostratus informs us that the 3 l. ¢. p. 288 sq.

conduct of his hero in this respect 41. ¢, p. 290 sq.

COL. 25

(ii) Geo-
graphical
difficulties
in the
theory.

386

The fo-
reign ele-
ment of
Essenism
to be
sought in
the East,

to which
also Py-
thago-
reanism
may have
been in-
debted.

THE ESSENES,

Syrian Greeks. We know that at this time Hellenizing influences
did infuse themselves largely into Judaism: and what more natural
than that among these the Pythagorean philosophy and discipline
should have recommended itself to a section of the Jewish people ?
Tt may be said in reply, that at all events the special locality of the
Essenes is the least favourable to such a solution: but, without
pressing this fact, Zeller’s hypothesis is open to two serious objections
which combined seem fatal to it, unsupported as it is by any
historical notice. First, this influence of Pythagoreanism is assumed
to have taken place at the very time when the Pythagorean school
was practically extinct: and secondly, it is supposed to have acted
upon that very section of the Jewish community, which was the
most vigorous advocate of national exclusiveness and the most averse
to Hellenizing influences,

It is not therefore to Greek but to Oriental influences that con-
siderations of time and place, as well as of internal character, lead
us to look for an explanation of the alien elements in Essene Judaism.

And have we not here also the account of any real coincidences which |

may exist between Essenism and Neopythagoreanism? We should
perhaps be hardly more justified in tracing Neopythagoreanism
directly to Essenism than conversely (though, if we had no other
alternative, this would appear to be the more probable solution
of the two): but were not both alike due to substantially the same
influences acting in different degrees? I think it will hardly be denied
that the characteristic features of Pythagoreanism, and especially of
Neopythagoreanism, which distinguish it from other schools of Greek
philosophy, are much more Oriental in type, than Hellenic. The
asceticism, the magic, the mysticism, of the sect all point in the
same direction, And history moreover contains indications that
such was the case. There seems to be sufficient ground for the
statement that Pythagoras himself was indebted to intercourse with
the Egyptians, if not with more strictly Oriental nations, for some
leading ideas of his system, But, however this may be, the fact
that in the legendary accounts, which the Neopythagoreans invented
to do honour to the founder of the school, he is represented as taking
lessons from the Chaldeans, Persians, Brahmins, and others, may be
taken as an evidence that their own philosophy at all events was
partially derived from eastern sources’. |

1 See the references in Zeller 1. p. 218 sq.; comp. m1, 2, p. 67.

THE ESSENES. 387

But, if the alien elements of Essenism were borrowed not so
much from Greek philosophy as from Oriental mysticism, to what
nation or what religion was it chiefly indebted? To this question it
is difficult, with our very imperfect knowledge of the East at the
Christian era, to reply with any confidence. Yet there is one system Resem-
to which we naturally look, as furnishing the most probable answer. Cee
The Medo-Persian religion supplies just those elements which dis-
tinguish the tenets and practices of the Essenes from the normal

(x) First ; we have here a very definite form of (i) Dual- ,
ism,

type of Judaism,
dualism, which exercised the greatest influence on subsequent Gnostic
sects, and of which Manicheism, the most matured development of
dualistic doctrine in connexion with Christianity, was the ultimate
fruit. For though dualism may not represent the oldest theology
of the Zend-Avesta in its unadulterated form, yet long before the
era of which we are speaking it had become the fundamental prin-

ciple of the Persian religion. (2) Again; the Zoroastrian symbolism (ii) Sun-

of light, and consequent worship of the sun as the fountain of light, worship.
will explain those anomalous notices of the Essenes in which they are

(3) Moreover ; (iii) Angel-
the ‘worship of angels’ in the Essene system has a striking parallel ©":

represented as paying reverence to this luminary’.

in the invocations of spirits, which form a very prominent feature
in the ritual of the Zend-Avesta. And altogether their angelology
is illustrated, and not improbably was suggested, by the doctrine of
intermediate beings concerned in the government of nature and of
man, such as the Amshaspands, which is an integral part of the
(4) And once more; the magic, which was so (iv) Magic.
attractive to the Essene, may have received its impulse from the

Zoroastrian system’.

priestly caste of Persia, to whose world-wide fame this form of super-

stition is indebted for its name. (5) If to these parallels I venture (vy) Striv-
also to add the intense striving after purity, which is the noblest ance
feature in the Persian religion, I do so, not because the Essenes

1 Keim (Geschichte Jesu von Nazara
I. p. 303) refers to Tac, Hist. iii. 24
‘Undique clamor; et orientem solem
(ita in Syria mos est) tertiani salu-
tavere,’ as illustrating this Hssene
practice. The commentators on Ta-
citus quote a similar notice of the
Parthians in Herodian iv, 15 dua dé
HrLw dvloxovre éddvyn ’AprdBavos odv

peylorw wrAj0e orparod’ domacdpmevot
dé rdv WALOov, ws eos adrors, of BaépBapoe
K.T.r.

2 See e.g. Vendidad Farg. xix; and
the liturgical portions of the book are
largely taken up with invocations of
these intermediate beings. Some ex-
tracts are given in Davies’ Colossians

p. 146 sq.
25—2

388

Other
coinci-
dences ac-
cidental.

The de-
struction
of the
Persian
empire
not ad-
verse

THE ESSENES.

might not have derived this impulse from a higher source, but
because this feature was very likely to recommend the Zoroastrian
system to their favourable notice, and because also the particular
form which the zeal for purity took among them was at all events
congenial to the teaching of the Zend-Avesta, and may not have
been altogether free from its influences,

I have preferred dwelling on these broader resemblances, because
they are much more significant than any mere coincidence of details,
which may or may not have been accidental. Thus for instance the
magi, like the Essenes, wore white garments, and eschewed gold
and ornaments; they practised frequent lustrations; they avoided
flesh, living on bread and cheese or on herbs and fruits; they
had different orders in their society ; and the like’. All these, as I
have already remarked, may be the independent out-growth of the
same temper and direction of conduct, and need not imply any direct
historical connexion. Nor is,there any temptation to press such
resemblances; for even without their aid the general connexion seems
to be sufficiently established *,

But it is said, that the history of Persia does not favour the
hypothesis of such an influence as is here assumed. ‘The destruction
of the Persian empire by Alexander, argues Zeller*, and the subse-

quent erection of the Parthian domination on its ruins, must have

been fatal to the spread of Zoroastrianism. From the middle of the
third century before Christ, when the Parthian empire was esta-
blished, till towards the middle of the third century of our era,

——s Beate

1 Hilgenfeld (Zeitschrift x. p. 99 sq.)
finds coincidences even more special
than these. He is answered by Zeller
(111. 2, p. 276), but defends his posi-
tion again (Zeitschrift x1. p. 347 8q.),
though with no great success. Among
other points of coincidence Hilgenfeld
remarks on the axe (Jos. B. J. ii. 8.
7) which was given to the novices
among the Essenes, and connects it
with the déwoyarvrea (Plin. N. H.
xxxvi. 19) of the magi. Zeller con-
tents himself with replying that the
use of the axe among the Essenes for
purposes of divination is a pure con-
jecture, not resting on any known
fact. He might have answered with

much more effect that Josephus else-
where (§ 9) defines it as a spade or
shovel, and assigns to it a very dif-
ferent use. Hilgenfeld has damaged
his cause by laying stress on these
accidental resemblances. So far as
regards minor coincidences, Zeller
makes out as good a case for his
Pythagoreans, as Hilgenfeld for his
magians.

2 Those who allow any foreign
Oriental element in Essenism most
commonly ascribe it to Persia: e. g.
among the more recent writers, Hil-
genfeld (l.¢.), and Lipsius Schenkel’s
Bibel-Lexikon s, v. Esser p. 189.

oT, Ce Te 278.

THE ESSENES. : 389

when the Persian monarchy and religion were once more restored’,

its influence must have been reduced within the narrowest limits.

But does analogy really suggest such an inference? Does not the butfavour-
history of the Jews themselves show that the religious influence of pac iu
a people on the world at large may begin just where its national Parsism.
life ends? The very dispersion of Zoroastrianism, consequent on the

fall of the empire, would impregnate the atmosphere far and wide ;

and the germs of new religious developments would thus be implanted

in alien soils. For in tracing Essenism to Persian influences I have

not wished to imply that this Jewish sect consciously incorporated

the Zoroastrian philosophy and religion as such, but only that
Zoroastrian ideas were infused into its system by more or less direct

contact. And, as a matter of fact, it seems quite certain that Persian

ideas were widely spread during this very interval, when the Persian
nationality was eclipsed. It was then that Hermippus gave to the Indica-
Greeks the most detailed account of this religion which had ever been Larethih,
laid before them’, It was then that its tenets suggested or moulded duringthis
the speculations of the various Gnostic sects. It was then that ii:
the worship of the Persian Mithras spread throughout the Roman

Empire.

root in Asia Minor, making for itself (as it were) a second home in

It was then, if not earlier, that the magian system took

Cappadocia®. It was then, if not earlier, that the Zoroastrian demon-
ology stamped itself so deeply on the apocryphal literature of the
Jews themselves, which borrowed even the names of evil spirits *
from the Persians. There are indeed abundant indications that
Palestine was surrounded by Persian influences during this period,
when the Persian empire was in abeyance.

Thus we seem to have ample ground for the view that certain

1 See Gibbon Decline and Fail
c. viii, Milman History of Christianity
Il. p. 247 8q. The latter speaks of
this restoration of Zoroastrianism, as
‘perhaps the only instance of the
vigorous revival of a Pagan religion.’
It was far purer and less Pagan than
the system which it superseded; and
this may account for its renewed life.

2 See Miiller Fragm. Hist. Graec.
III. p. 53 8q. for this work of Hermip-
pus wept Mdywy. He flourished about
B.0. 200. See Max Miiller Lectures on

the Science of Language 1st ser. p. 86.

3 Strabo xv. 3. 15 (p. 733) "Ev 6¢ r7j
Kamrasdoxig (rod yap exe? 76 ToHv Ma-
ywv pidrov, ot Kat mipacoe Kadovvrac*
mona 8 Kal trav Ilepoixdy Sew tepa)
K.T.A,

4 At least in one instance, Asmo-
deus (Tob. iii. 17); see M. Miller
Chips from a German Workshop 1.
p. 148 sq. For the different dates as-
signed to the book of Tobit see Dr
Westcott’s article Tobit in Smith’s
Dictionary of the Bible p. 1525.

390

Are Bud-
dhist in-
fluences

also per-
ceptible?

Supposed
Buddhist
establish-
ment at
Alexan-
dria.

The au-
thority
misinter-
preted

THE ESSENES.

alien features in Essene Judaism were derived from the Zoroastrian
religion. But are we justified in going a step further, and attribut-
ing other elements in this eclectic system to the more distant East ?
The monasticism of the Buddhist will naturally occur to our
minds, as a precursor of the cenobitic life among the Essenes ; and
Hilgenfeld accordingly has not hesitated to ascribe this characteristic
of Essenism directly to Buddhist influences’. But at the outset
we are obliged to ask whether history gives any such indication
of the presence of Buddhism in the West as this hypothesis requires,
Hilgenfeld answers this question in the affirmative. He points
confidently to the fact that as early as the middle of the second
century before Christ the Buddhist records speak of their faith as
flourishing in Alasanda the chief city of the land of Yavana. The
place intended, he conceives, can be none other than the great
Alexandria, the most famous of the many places bearing the name’.
In this opinion however he stands quite alone. Neither Koppen’,
who is his authority for this statement, nor any other Indian
scholar *, so far as I am aware, for a moment contemplates this identi-
fication. Yavana, or Yona, was the common Indian name for the
Greco-Bactrian kingdom and its dependencies’; and to this region
we naturally turn. The Alasanda or Alasadda therefore, which is
here mentioned, will be one of several Eastern cities bearing the name
of the great conqueror, most probably Alexandria ad Caucasum.

1 Zettschrift X. p. 103 8q.; comp.
xI. p. 351. M. Renan also (Langues
Sémitiques ur. iv. 1, Vie de Jésus
p. 98) suggests that Buddhist influences
operated in Palestine.

* x. p. 105 ‘was schon an sich,
zumal in dieser Zeit, schwerlich Alex-
andria ad Caucasum, sondern nur
Alexandrien in Aegypten bedeuten
kann.’ Comp. xi. p. 351, where he
repeats the same argument in reply to
Zeller, This is a very natural in-
ference from a western point of view ;
but, when we place ourselves in the
position of a Buddhist writer to whom
Bactria was Greece, the relative pro-
portions of things are wholly changed.

3 Die Religion des Buddha t. p. 193.

4 Comp. e.g. Weber Die Verbin-
dungen Indiens mit den Ldndern im
Westen p.675 in the Allgem. Monatsschr.

f. Wissensch. u. Literatur, Braun-
schweig 1853; Lassen Indische Alter-
thumskunde 11. p. 236; Hardy Manual
of Budhism p. 516.

5 For its geographical meaning in
older Indian writers see Koppen 1. c.
Since then it has entirely departed
from its original signification, and
Yavana is now a common term used
by the Hindoos to designate the Mo-
hammedans, Thus the Greek name
has come to be applied to a people
which of all others is most unlike the
Greeks. This change of meaning ad-
mirably illustrates the use of “Edn
among the Jews, which in like man-
ner, from being the name of an alien
nation, became the name of an alien
religion, irrespective of nationality ;
see the note on Gal. ii, 3.

THE ESSENES.

But indeed I hardly think that, if Hilgenfeld had referred to the

original authority for the statement, the great Buddhist history
Mahawanso, he would have ventured to lay any stress at all on

this notice, as supporting his theory. The historian, or rather and wholly
fabulist (for such he is in this earlier part of his chronicle), is _re- wie
lating the foundation of the Mah& thiipo, or great tope, at Ruanwelli itself.

by the king Dutthagamini in the year Bc. 157. Beyond the fact

that this tope was erected by this king the rest is plainly legendary.

All the materials for the construction of the building, we are told, |
appeared spontaneously as by miracle—the bricks, the metals, the

391

precious stones. The dewos, or demons, lent their aid in the erection.
In fact
the fabric huge
Rose like an exhalation.
‘Priests gathered in enormous numbers from all the great Buddhist
monasteries to do honour to the festival of the foundation. One
place alone sent not less than 96,000. Among the rest it is mentioned
that ‘Maha Dhammarakkito, théro (i.e. senior priest) of Yéna, accom-
panied by 30,000 priests from the vicinity of Alasadda, the capital
of the Y6na country, attended’.’ It is obvious that no weight can
be attached to a statement occurring as part of a story of which
the other details are so manifestly false. An establishment of
30,000 Buddhist priests at Alexandria would indeed be a pheno-
menon of which historians have shown a strange neglect.
Nor is the presence of any Buddhist establishment even on a General
much smaller scale in this important centre of western civilisation we rol

which the dhism in

at all reconcilable with the ignorance of this religion,
the West.

Greeks and Romans betray at a much later date*, For some centu-
ries after the Christian era we find that the information possessed by
western writers was most shadowy and confused; and in almost
every instance we are able to trace it to some other cause than the

actual presence of Buddhists in the Roman Empire*®, Thus Strabo,

Strabo.

1 Mahawanso p. 171, Turnour’s
translation,

2 How for instance, if any such
establishment had ever existed at
Alexandria, could Strabo have used
the language which is quoted in the
next note?

3 Consistently with this view, we

may allow that single Indians would
visit Alexandria from time to time for
purposes of trade or for other reasons,
and not more than this is required by
the rhetorical passage in Dion Chry-
sost. Or. xxxii (p. 373) 6p@ ydp &ywye
ob pbvoy "EXAnvas map’ dpiv......dAd\a
kat Baxrplous kat Zkddas kal Iépoas cat

392

THE ESSENES.

who wrote under Augustus and Tiberius, apparently mentions the
Buddhist priests, the sramanas, under the designation sarmane (Xap-
pavas)’; but he avowedly obtains his information from Megasthenes,

"Ivicv rwds. The qualifying rwds
shows how very slight was the com-
munication between India and Alex-
andria. The mission of Pantenus
may have been suggested by the pre-
sence of such stray visitors. Jerome
(Vir. Ill. 36) says that he went ‘roga-
tus ab illius gentis legatis.’ It must
remain doubtful however, whether
some other region than Hindostan,
such as Aithiopia for instance, is not
meant, when Pantenus is said to have
gone to India: see Cave’s Lives of the
Primitive Fathers p. 188 sq.

How very slight the communication
was between India and the West in
the early years of the Christian era,
appears from this passage of Strabo
KV. I. 4 (p. 686); Kal ol viv dé é& Alyir-
rou wAgovres éuroptxol TH Nelhy kal 7G
"ApaBiy KdrAm~ méxpt THs "IvduKijs omd-
viot ev Kal mwepuremNevKace méxpL TOU
Tayyov, xal ovro & liuirac Kal oddéey
mpos taroplay Trav tbrwv xphomot, after
which he goes on to say that the only
instance of Indian travellers in the
West was the embassy sent to Augus-
tus (see below p. 394), which came aq’
évos Tomou Kal map’ évos Bacihéws.

The communications between India
and the West are investigated by two
recent writers, Reinaud Relations Poli-
tiques et Commerciales de VEmpire
Romain avec VAsie Centrale, Paris
1863, and Priaulx The Indian Travels
of Apollonius of Tyana and the Indian
Embassies to Rome, 1873. The latter
work, which is very thorough and
satisfactory, would have saved me
much labour of independent investiga-
tion, if I had seen it in time.

1 Strabo xv. 1. 59, p. 712. In the
mss it is written Tapudvas, but this
must be an error either introduced by
Strabo’s transcribers or found in the
copy of Megasthenes which this author
used. This is plain not only from the
Indian word itself, but also from the
parallel passage in Clement of Alexan-
dria (Strom. i, 15). From the coin-

cidences of language it is clear that
Clement also derived his information
from Megasthenes, whose name he
mentions just below. The fragments
of Megasthenes relating to the Indian
philosophers will be found in Miiller
Fragm. Hist. Graec. 1. p. 437. They
were previously edited by Schwanbeck,
Megasthenis Indica (Bonne 1846).

For Zappavac we also find the form
Zapavato. in other writers; e.g. Clem.
Alex. 1. c., Bardesanes in Porphyr. de
Abstin. iv. 17, Orig. c. Cels. i. 19 (I.
p- 342). This divergence is explained
by the fact that the Pali word sammana

corresponds to the Sanskrit sramana. -

See Schwanbeck, 1. c. p. 17, quoted by
Miiller, p. 437. .

It should be borne in mind however,
that several eminent Indian scholars
believe Megasthenes to have meant
not Buddhists but Brahmins by his
Zapudvas. So for instance Lassen
Rhein, Mus. 1833, p. 180 8q., Ind.
Alterth. 11. p. 7oo: and Prof. Max.
Miiller (Pref. to Rogers’s Translation
of Buddhaghosha’s Parables, London
1870, p. lii) says; ‘That Lassen is
right in taking the Zapydvar, men-
tioned by Megasthenes, for Brahmanie,
not for Buddhist ascetics, might be
proved also by their dress. Dresses
made of the bark of trees are not
Buddhistic.’ If this opinion be correct,
the earlier notices of Buddhism in
Greek writers entirely disappear, and
my position is strengthened. But for
the following reasons the other view
appears to me more probable: (1) The
term sramana is the common term
for the Buddhist ascetic, whereas it
is very seldom used of the Brahmin.
(2) The Zadpyavos (another form of
sramana), mentioned below p. 394,
note 2, appears to have been a
Buddhist. This view is taken even
by Lassen, Ind. Alterth. u1. p. 60.
(3) The distinction of Bpaxydves and
Zapudva in Megasthenes or the writers
following him corresponds to the dis-

THE ESSENES. | "BGS ©
who travelled in India somewhere about the year 300 B.c. and wrote
a book on Indian affairs. Thus too Bardesanes at a much later date Barde-
gives an account of these Buddhist ascetics, without however naming *“"*
the founder of the religion; but he was indebted for his knowledge
of them to conversations with certain Indian ambassadors who visited
Syria on their way westward in the reign of one of the Antonines’.
Clement of Alexandria, writing in the latest years of the second Clement
century or the earliest of the third, for the first* time mentions aig ee
Buddha by name; and even he betrays a strange ignorance of this

Eastern religion ®,

tinction of Bpaxyudves and Zapavaitor
in Bardesanes, Origen, and others ;
and, as Schwanbeck has shown (1. ¢.),
the account of the Dapyudva: in Mega-
sthenes for the most part is a close
parallel to the account of the Zayuavator
in Bardesanes (or at least in Por-
phyry’s report of Bardesanes), It
seems more probable therefore that
Megasthenes has been guilty of con-
fusion in describing the dress of the
Zappyava, than that Brahmins are in-
tended by the term.

The Pali form, Dayavator, as a de-
signation of the Buddhists, first occurs
in Clement of Alexandria or Barde-
sanes, whichever may be the earlier
writer. It is generally ascribed to
Alexander Polyhistor, who flourished
B.C. 80—6o0, because his authority is
quoted by Cyril of Alexandria (c.
Julian, iv. p. 133) in the same context
in which the Dayavaio are mentioned.
This inference is drawn by Schwan-
beck, Max Miiller, Lassen, and others.
An examination of Cyril’s language
however shows that the statement for
which he quotes the authority of Alex-
ander Polyhistor does not extend to
the mention of the Samanzi. Indeed
all the facts given in this passage of
Cyril (including the reference to Poly-
histor) are taken from Clement of
Alexandria (Strom. i. 15; see below n.
3), whose account Cyril has abridged.
It is possible indeed that Clement
himself derived the statement from
Polyhistor, but nothing in Clement’s
own language points to this.

1 The narrative of Bardesanes is

given by Porphyry de Abst. iv. 17.
The Buddhist ascetics are there called
Zapavato. (see the last note), The
work of Bardesanes, recounting his
conversations with these Indian am-
bassadors, is quoted again by Porphyry
in a fragment preserved by Stob«us
Ecl. iii. 56 (p. 141). In this last pas-

sage the embassy is said to have arrived .

émt ris Bacirelas ris “Avrwrivov rod é&
*Exuoadv, by which, if the words be
correct, must be meant Elagabalus
(A.D. 218—222), the spurious Antonine
(see Hilgenfeld Bardesanes p. 12 8q.).
Other ancient authorities however place
Bardesanes in the reign of one of the
older Antonines ; and, as the context
is somewhat corrupt, we cannot feel
quite certain about the date. Barde-
sanes gives by far the most accurate
account of the Buddhists to be found
in any ancient Greek writer; but even
here the monstrous stories, which the
Indian ambassadors related to him,
show how little trustworthy such
sources of information were,

2 Except possibly Arrian, Ind. viii.
I, who mentions an ancient Indian
king, Budyas (Bovétas) by name; but
what he relates of him is quite incon-
sistent with the history of Buddha,
and probably some one else is intended.

3 In this passage (Strom. i. 15, p.
359) Clement apparently mentions
these same persons three times, sup-
posing that he is describing three dif-
ferent schools of Oriental philosophers.
(1) He speaks of Zapavaioe Bdaxrpwy
(comp. Cyrill. Alex. 1. ¢.); (2) He dis-
tinguishes two classes of Indian gymno-

394
Hippoly-
tus.

A Bud-
dhist at
Athens.

THE ESSENES.

Still later than this, Hippolytus, while he gives a fairly intelligent,
though brief, account of the Brahmins’, says not a word about the
Buddhists, though, if he had been acquainted with their teaching,
he would assuredly have seen in them a fresh support to his theory

of the affinity between Christian heresies and pre-existing heathen phi-

losophies.

With one doubtful exception—an Indian fanatic attached

to an embassy sent by king Porus to Augustus, who astonished the
Greeks and Romans by burning himself alive at Athens*—there

sophists, whom he calls Zapudvac and
Bpaxuavat. These are Buddhists and
Brahmins respectively (see p. 392, note
1); (3) He says afterwards elot 6é
riv “Ivddy of rots Botrra meOduevor
mapayyéAuacw, dv di” drepBorrv cey-
vornros els [ws?] Oedv TerimyKact.
Schwanbeck indeed maintains that Cle-
ment here intends to describe the same
persons whom he has just mentioned
as Dapuava; but thisis not the natura!
interpretation of his language, which
must mean ‘There are also among
the Indians those who obey the pre-
cepts of Buddha.’ Probably Schwan-
beck is right in identifying the Zapua-
vat with the Buddhist ascetics, but
Clement appears not to have known
this. In fact he has obtained his in-
formation from different sources, and
so repeated himself without being aware
of it. Where he got the first fact it is
impossible to say. The second, as we
saw, was derived from Megasthenes,
The third, relating to Buddha, came,
as we may conjecture, either from
Pantenus (if indeed Hindostan is
really meant by the India of his mis-
sionary labours) or from some chance
Indian visitor at Alexandria.

In another passage (Strom. iii. 7,
p- 539) Clement speaks of certain In-
dian celibates and ascetics, who are
called Zeuvof. As he distinguishes
them from the gymnosophists, and
mentions the pyramid as a sacred
building with them, the identification
with the Buddhists can hardly be
doubted. Here therefore Leuvol is a
Grecized form of Zapavatoc ; and this
modification of the word would occur
naturally to Clement, because ceyvol,
ceuvetov, were already used of the ascetic

life: e.g. Philo de Vit. Cont. 3 (p.
475M) lepdv 8 Kadelrac oemvetov Kal
Kovacripioy év povodpmevo. Ta TOU
cepuvob Blov pvorjpia TedovvTaL.

1 Haer, i. 24.

2 The chief authority is Nicolaus of
Damascus in Strabo xy. 1. 73 (p. 270).
The incident is mentioned also in Dion
Cass, liv.9g. Nicolaus had met these
ambassadors at Antioch, and gives an
interesting account of the motley com-
pany and their strange presents. This
fanatic, who was one of the number,
immolated himself in the presence of
an astonished crowd, and perhaps of
the emperor himself, at Athens. He
anointed himself and then leapt smil-
ing on the pyre. The inscription on
his tomb was Zapuavoxnyas Ivids dad
Bapydons xatrd ta mdroa “Ividv 20n
éautov draGavaricas Keira. The tomb
was visible at least as late as the age
of Plutarch, who recording the self-
immolation of Calanus before Alexan-
der (Vit. Alex. 69) says, tobro moAXols
éreaw Uarepov addos ‘Ivdds év ’AOhvas
Kaloape ouvwyv eérolyce, kal delxvurar
béxpt viv TO pynuetoy "Ivd00 mpocayo-
pevouevov. Strabo also places the two
incidents in conjunction in another
passage in which he refers to this
person, xv. 1. 4 (p. 686) 6 karaxavoas
éavrov AOnvyc. cogiorhs Ivdbs, kabdmep
kalo Kdyavos x.7.X.

The reasons for supposing this per-
gon to have been a Buddhist, rather
than a Brahmin, are: (1) The name
Zappavoxnyas (which appears with
some variations in the mss of Strabo)
being apparently the Indian sramana-
karja, i.e. ‘teacher of the ascetics,’
in other words, a Buddhist priest;
(2) The place Bargosa, i.e. Barygaza,

THE ESSENES. 395

is apparently no notice in either heathen or Christian writers, which
points to the presence of a Buddhist within the limits of the Roman
Empire, till long after the Essenes had ceased to exist’.

And if so, the coincidences must be very precise, before we are The al-_
justified in attributing any peculiarities of Essenism to Buddhist es
influences. This however is far from being the case. They both Tousne,
exhibit a well-organized monastic society: but the monasticism
of the Buddhist priests, with its systematized mendicancy, has little Monasti-
in common with the monasticism of the Essene recluse, whose life sg
was largely spent in manual labour. They both enjoin celibacy, Asceti-
both prohibit the use of flesh and of wine, both abstain from the “””
slaughter of animals. But, as we have already seen, such resem-
blances prove nothing, for they may be explained by the inde-
pendent development of the same religious principles. One coincidence,
and one only, is noticed by Hilgenfeld, which at first sight seems
more striking and might suggest a historical connexion. He observes Four or-
that the four orders of the Essene community are derived from the raisin

four steps.
where Buddhism flourished in that
age. See Priaulx p. 78 sq. In Dion
Cassius it is written Zdpuapos.

And have we not here an explana-
tion of x Cor. xiii. 3, if wa Kav0joo-
pa. be the right reading? The pas-
sage, being written before the fires of
the Neronian persecution, requires ex-
planation. Now it is clear from Plu-
tarch that the ‘Tomb of the Indian’
was one of the sights shown to stran-
gers at Athens: and the Apostle, who
observed the altar ATN@CTW! GEODI,
was not likely to overlook the sepul-
chre with the strange inscription
EAYTON ATTADANATICAC KEITAL In-
deed the incident would probably be
pressed on his notice in his discussions
with Stoics and Epicureans, and he
would be forced to declare himself as
to the value of these Indian self-im-
molations, when he preached the doc-
frine of self-sacrifice. We may well
imagine therefore that the fate of this
poor Buddhist fanatic was present to
his mind when he penned the words
kal édy wapadd 7b o@ud pov...dydarnv dé
pHexw, oddev Wpeoduar. Indeed it would
furnish an almost equally good illus-
tration of the text, whether we read iva

KavOnooua or wa Kavxjowua. Dion
Cassius (1. c.) suggests that the deed
was done vrd gidorimas or els érldecéwv.
How much attention these religious
suicides of the Indians attracted in the
Apostolic age (doubtless because the
act of this Buddhist priest had brought
the subject vividly before men’s minds
in the West), we may infer from the
speech which Josephus puts in the
mouth of Eleazar (B, J. vii. 8. 7), BAé-
Wwpev els Ivdods rods coplav doxelv br-
toxvovpévous...of 6é... rupt To capa
mapaddvres, drws bn Kal kabapwrarnv
dmroxplywaot Tou cwuaros THY WuxXnY, du-
voupevo. TéeNEVT@CL...ap’ otv ovK aldov-
peba xetpov "Ivdav ppovotyrtes ;

1 In the reign of Claudius an em-
bassy arrived from Taprobane (Ceylon) ;
and from these ambassadors Pliny de-
rived his information regarding the
island, N. H. vi. 24. Respecting their
religion however he says only two
words ‘coli Herculem,’ by whom pro-
bably Rama is meant (Priaulx p. 116).
From this and other statements it
appears that they were Tamils and
not Singalese, and thus belonged to
the non-Buddhist part of the island;
see Priaulx p. 91 sq.

396

Buddhist
influences
seen first
in Mani-
cheism.

THE ESSENES.

four steps of Buddhism. Against this it might fairly be, argued
that such coincidences of numbers are often purely accidental,
and that in the present instance there is no more reason for con-
necting the four steps of Buddhism with the four orders of Essenism
than there would be for connecting the ten precepts of Buddha
with the Ten Commandments of Moses. But indeed a nearer
examination will show that the two have nothing whatever in
common except the number. The four steps or paths of Buddhism
are not four grades of an external order, but four degrees of spiritual
progress on the way to nirvana or annihilation, the ultimate goal
of the Buddhist’s religious aspirations.
nected with the Buddhist monastic system, as an organization.
A reference to the Buddhist notices collected in Hardy’s Hastern
Monachism (p. 280 sq.) will at once dispel any suspicion of a
A man may attain to the highest of these four stages
He does not need to

They are wholly uncon-

resemblance.
of Buddhist illumination instantaneously.
have passed through the lower grades, but may even be a layman
at the time. Some merit obtained in a previous state of existence
may raise him per saltum to the elevation of a rahat, when all
earthly desires are crushed and no future birth stands between him
and nirvana. There remains therefore no coincidence which would
suggest any historical connexion between Essenism and Buddhism.
Indeed it is not till some centuries later, when Manicheism’ starts
into being, that we find for the first time any traces of the influence

of Buddhism on the religions of the West’.

1 Even its influence on Manicheism
however is disputed in a learned article
in the Home and Foreign Review ut.
p. 143 8q. (1863), by Mr P. Le Page
Renouf (see Academy 1873, p. 399).

2 An extant inscription, containing
an edict of the great Buddhist king
Asoka and dating about the middle of
the 3rd century B.c., was explained by
Prinsep as recording a treaty of this
monarch with Ptolemy and other suc-

cessors of Alexander, by whichreligious
freedom was secured for the Buddhists
throughout their dominions. If this
interpretation had been correct, we
must have supposed that, so far as
regards Egypt and Western Asia, the
treaty remained a dead letter. But
later critics have rejected this interpre-
tation of its purport: see Thomas’s
edition of Prinsep’s Essays on Indian
Antiquities 11. p. 18 sq.

—— EE ee ee ee ee ee ee

III.
ESSENISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

T has become a common practice with a certain class of writers to The theory
call Essenism to their aid in accounting for any distinctive features oe _
of Christianity, which they are unable to explain in any other Christi-

way. Wherever some external power is needed to solve a perplexity, cs ete
here is the deus ex machina whose aid they most readily invoke. rie eas
Constant repetition is sure to produce its effect, and probably not a
few persons, who want either the leisure or the opportunity to
investigate the subject for themselves, have a lurking suspicion
that the Founder of Christianity may have been an Essene, or at
all events that Christianity was largely indebted to Essenism for its
doctrinal and ethical teaching’, Indeed, when very confident and
Sweeping assertions are made, it is natural to presume that they
rest on a substantial basis of fact. Thus for instance we are told by
one writer that Christianity is ‘Essenism alloyed with foreign ele-
ments’*; while another, who however approaches the subject in a
different spirit, says ; ‘It will hardly be doubted that our Saviour
himself belonged to this holy brotherhood. This will especially be
apparent, when we remember that the whole Jewish community at
the advent of Christ was divided into three parties, the Pharisees,
the Sadducees, and the Essenes, and that every Jew had to belong to
one of these sects. Jesus who in all things conformed to the Jewish
law, and who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from
sinners, would therefore naturally associate Himself with that order

1 De Quincey’s attempt to prove ceived in a wholly different spirit. from
that the Essenes were actually Chris- the theories of the writers mentioned
tians (Works v1. p. 270 8q., Ix. p. 253 in the text; but it is even more un-
sq.), who used the machinery of an tenable and does not deserve serious
esoteric society to inculcate their doc- refutation.
trines ‘for fear of the Jews,’ is con- 2 Gratz 1m. p. 217.

398

tested by
facts,

Our Lord
need not
have be-
longed to
any sect.

The argu-
ment from
the silence
of the New
Testa-
ment an-
swered,

THE ESSENES.

of Judaism which was most congenial to His nature’.’ I purpose
testing these strong assertions by an appeal to facts.

For the statements involved in those words of the last extract
which I have underlined, no authority is given by the writer him-
self; nor have I been able to find confirmation of them in any
quarter. On the contrary the frequent allusions which we find to
the vulgar herd, the idwra, the gam haarets, who are distinguished
from the disciples of the schools’, suggest that a large proportion of
the people was unattached to any sect. If it had been otherwise, we
might reasonably presume that our Lord, as one who ‘in all things
conformed to the Jewish law,’ would have preferred attaching Him-
self to the Pharisees who ‘sat in Moses’ seat’ and whose precepts
He recommended His disciples to obey *, rather than to the Essenes
who in one important respect at least—the repudiation of the temple
sacrifices—acted in flagrant violation of the Mosaic ordinances.

This preliminary barrier being removed, we are free to investi-
gate the evidence for their presumed connexion, And here we are
met first with a negative argument, which obviously has great
weight with many persons. Why, it is asked, does Jesus, who so
unsparingly denounces the vices and the falsehoods of Pharisees and
Sadducees, never once mention the Essenes by way of condemnation,
or indeed mention them by name at all? Why, except that He
Himself belonged to this sect and looked favourably on their
teaching? This question is best answered by another. How can

we explain the fact, that throughout the enormous mass of tal-

mudical and early rabbinical literature this sect is not once men-
tioned by name, and that even the supposed allusions to them, which
have been discovered for the first time in the present century, turn
out on investigation to be hypothetical and illusory? The difficulty
is much greater in this latter instance; but the answer is the same
in both cases. The silence is explained by the comparative insig-
nificance of the sect, their small numbers and their retired habits.
Their settlements were far removed from the great centres of political
and religious life. Their recluse habits, as a rule, prevented them
from interfering in the common business of the world. Philo and
Josephus have given prominence to them, because their ascetic

1 Ginsburg Essenes p. 24. 3 Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.
2 See above, p. 366.

THE ESSENES. 399

practices invested them with the character of philosophers and
interested the Greeks and Romans in their history; but in the
national life of the Jews they bore a very insignificant part’. If the
Sadducees, who held the highest offices in the hierarchy, are only
mentioned directly on three occasions in the Gospels*, it can be no
surprise that the Essenes are not named at all.

As no stress therefore can be laid on the argument from silence, The posi-
any hypothesis of connexion between Essenism and Christianity pa es

ments for
must make good its claims by establishing one or both of these two ion a
points : first, that there is direct historical evidence of close inter- twofold.
course between the two; and secondly, that the resemblances of

doctrine and practice are so striking as to oblige, or at least to

warrant, the belief in such a connexion. If both these lines of
argument fail, the case must be considered to have broken down.

1. On the former point it must be premised that the Gospel 1. Absence
narrative does not suggest any hint of aconnexion. Indeed its general icant
tenor is directly adverse to such a supposition. From first to last cern
Jesus and His disciples move about freely, taking part in the nexion.
common business, even in the common recreations, of Jewish life.

The recluse ascetic brotherhood, which was gathered about the shores
of the Dead Sea, does not once appear above the Evangelists’ horizon.
Of this close society, as such, there is not the faintest indication.
But two individuals have been singled out, as holding an important Two indi-

place either in the Evangelical narrative or in the Apostolic Church, bie rt -

who, it is contended, form direct and personal links*of communi- l¢ged.

cation with this sect. These are John the Baptist and James the

Lord’s brother. The one is the forerunner of the Gospel, the first

1 This fact is fully recognised by
several recent writers, who will not be
suspected of any undue bias towards
traditional views of Christian history.
Thus Lipsius writes (p. 190), ‘In the
general development of Jewish life
Essenism occupies a far more sub-
ordinate place than is commonly
ascribed to it.” And Keim expresses
himself to the same effect (1. p. 305).
Derenbourg also, after using similar
language, adds this wise. caution, ‘In
any case, in the present state of our
acquaintance with the Essenes, which

is so imperfect and has no chance of
being extended, the greatest prudence
is required of science, if she prefers to
be true rather than adventurous, if she
has at heart rather to enlighten than to
surprise’ (p. 461). Even Gratz in one
passage can write soberly on this sub-
ject: ‘The Essenes had throughout
no influence on political movements,
from which they held aloof as far as
possible’ (111. p. 86).

2 These are (1) Matt. iii. 7; (2)
Matt. xvi. 1 sq.; (3) Matt. xxii. 23 sq.,
Mark xii. 18, Luke xx, 27.

ee)

400

(i) John
the Bap-
tist

not an Es-

Bene.

External
resem-
blances to
John in
Banus,

THE ESSENES.

herald of the Kingdom; the other is the most prominent figure in the
early Church of Jerusalem.

(i) John the Baptist was an ascetic. His abode was the desert ;
his clothing was rough; his food was spare; he baptized his
penitents, Therefore, it is argued, he was an Essene. Between the
premisses and the conclusion however there is a broad gulf, which can-
not very easily be bridged over. The solitary independent life, which
John led, presents a type wholly different from the cenobitic esta-
blishments of the Essenes, who had common property, common
meals, common hours of labour and of prayer. It may even be
questioned whether his food of locusts would have been permitted
by the Essenes, if they really ate nothing which had life (€uvxov’).
And again; his baptism as narrated by the Evangelists, and their
lustrations as described by Josephus, have nothing in common except
the use of water for a religious purpose. When therefore we are
told confidently that ‘his manner of life was altogether after the
Essene pattern’, and that ‘he without doubt baptized his converts
into the Essene order,’ we know what value to attach to this bold
assertion. If positive statements are allowable, it would be more
true to fact to say that he could not possibly have been an Essene.
The rule of his life was isolation ; the principle of theirs, community’.

In this mode of life John was not singular. It would appear
that not a few devout Jews at this time retired from the world and
buried themselves in the wilderness, that they might devote them-
selves unmolested to ascetic discipline and religious meditation.
One such instance at all events we have in Banus the master of
Josephus, with whom the Jewish historian, when a youth, spent
three years in the desert. This anchorite was clothed in garments
made of bark or of leaves; his food was the natural produce of the
earth ; he bathed day and night in cold water for purposes of
purification. To the careless observer doubtless John and Banus
would appear to be men of the same stamp. In their outward mode
of life there was perhaps not very much difference*. The conscious-

1 See above p. 86. Banus as representing an extravagant
2 Gratz III. p. 100. development of the school of John,
3 76 Kowwvytidv, Joseph. B. J. ii. and thus supplying a link between the
8.3. See also Philo Fragm. 632 irép real teaching of the Baptist and the
roo Kowwedovs, and the context. doctrine of the Hemerobaptists pro-
4 Ewald (vr. p. 649) regards this fessing to be derived from him,

eS eee oe

i a

eae

THE ESSENES. 40L

ness of a divine mission, the gift of a prophetic insight, in John was

the real and all-important distinction between the two. But here who was
also the same mistake is made ; and we not uncommonly find Banus melee
described as an Essene. It is not too much to say however, that the

whole tenor of Josephus’ narrative is opposed to this supposition’,

He says that when sixteen years old he desired to acquire a know-

ledge of the three sects of the Jews before making his choice of one;

that accordingly he went through (8vj\Oov) all the three at the cost

of much rough discipline and toil ; that he was not satisfied with the
experience thus gained, and hearing of this Banus he attached
himself to him as his zealous disciple ({yAwrys éyevopyy airod) ; that
having remained three years with him he returned to Jerusalem ;

and that then, being nineteen years old, he gave in his adhesion to

the sect of the Pharisees, Thus there is no more reason for con-
necting this Banus with the Essenes:than with the Pharisees. The

only natural interpretation of the narrative is that he did not belong

to any of the three sects, but represented a distinct type of religious

life, of which Josephus was anxious to gain experience. And his
hermit life seems to demand this solution, which the sequence of the
narrative suggests.

Of John himself therefore no traits are handed down which General
suggest that he was a member of the Essene community. He wasan oti
ascetic, and the Essenes were ascetics; but this is plainly an inade-
quate basis for any such inference. Nor indeed is the relation of his
asceticism to theirs a question of much moment for the matter in
hand ; since this was the very point in which Christ’s mode of life
was so essentially different from John’s as to provoke criticism
and to point a contrast*. But the later history of his real or sup-
posed disciples has, or may seem to have, some bearing on this

1 The passage is so important that
I give it in full; Joseph. Vit. 2 zepi
éxxaldexa 5é rn yevduevos EBoudHOny Trav
map tyiv aipéceaw éurreiplay haBelr,
tpes & eloly avra Papialwy pev 7
mpwrn, Kal Zaddovcalwy h devrépa, rpirn
5¢ 7 “EoonvGv, xabas moddduis elraper.
ovTws yap wbunv alpjoecOa Thy dplorny,
el mdcas karapd0ouwt. okdAnpaywyhoas
ryobv éuavrodv Kal roANd rovnbels Tas Tpets
upAOov. Kat pndée rhv évredvdey éurre-
play ixavhvy éuavr@ voploas eiva, mvOd-
pevds Twa Bavodv 8vowa Kata Thy épnulay

COL,

duarplBew, éoO7re wév dd Sévipwv xpi-
Levov, Tpophy Oe Thy adroudrws gvouévnv
mpoopepbuevov, Wuxp@ dé Vari Thy tué-
pay kal tiv viKTa modddKis Aovdpevoy
mpos ayvelay, Snrwrns éyerdunv adrod.
kal duarplyas map’ adrg énavrovs pets
kal Thy érvOuulav Terevwoas els THY odW
tréorpepov. évveaxaldexa & ern exwv
Hpéduny te mwodirevecOa Ty Papicalwy
aipéoe: KataKkoNovO wy K.T.X.

2 Matt. ix. 14 sq., xi. 17 8q., Mark
ii, 18 sq., Luke vy. 33, vii. 31 8q.

26

402

TheHeme-
robaptists.

(a) Their
relation to
John the
Baptist.

John’s dis-
ciples at
Ephesus.

THE ESSENES.

investigation. Towards the close of the first and the beginning
of the second century we meet with a body of sectarians called
in Greek Hemerobaptists', in Hebrew Toble-shacharith*®, ‘day’ or
‘morning bathers.’ What were their relations to John the Baptist
on the one hand, and to the Essenes on the other? Owing to
the scantiness of our information the whole subject is wrapped in
obscurity, and any restoration of their history must be more or
less hypothetical; but it will be possible at all events to suggest
an account which is not improbable in itself, and which does no
violence to the extant notices of the sect.

(a) We must not hastily conclude, when we meet with certain
persons at Ephesus about the years A.D. 53, 54, who are described
as ‘knowing only the baptism of John,’ or as having been ‘ baptized
unto John’s baptism’,’ that we have here some early representatives
of the Hemerobaptist sect. These were Christians, though imperfectly
informed Christians. Of Apollos, who was more fully instructed by
Aquila and Priscilla, this is stated in the most explicit terms*. Of
the rest, who owed their fuller knowledge of the Gospel to St Paul,
the same appears to be implied, though the language is not free from
ambiguity’. But these notices have an important bearing on our
subject ; for they show how profoundly the effect of John’s preaching
was felt in districts as remote as proconsular Asia, even after a lapse
of a quarter of a century. With these disciples it was the initial

1 The word *fuepoBarricral is gene-
rally taken to mean ‘ daily-bathers,’
and this meaning is suggested by Apost.
Const. vi. 6 olrwes, kad’ Exdorny huépav
éay un Barticwvrat, ovK éBlovowy, 1b. 23
dvrl kaOnuepwod év pdvov Sols Bamriopa,
Epiphan. Haer. xvii. 1 (p. 37) ef uy te
dpa xa’ éxdorny nudpay Bamriforrd tis
év voart. But, if the word is intended
as a translation of Yoble-shacharith
‘morning bathers,’ as it seems to be,
it must signify rather ‘ day-bathers’ ;
and this is more in accordance with
the analogy of other compounds from
Tpépa, a8 huepbBros, Nuepodpsuos, uepo-
oxérros, etc.

Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 5) represents
the Essenes as bathing, not at dawn,
but at the fifth hour, just before their
meal. This is hardly consistent either
with the name of the Toble-shacharith,

or with the Talmudical anecdote of
them quoted above, p. 369. Of Banus
he reports (Vit. 2) that he ‘bathed
often day and night in cold water.’

2 See above, p. 368 sq.

3 The former expression is used of
Apollos, Acts xviii. 24; the latter of
‘certain disciples,’ Acts xix. 1.

4 This appears from the whole nar.
rative, but is distinctly stated in ver.
25, as correctly read, édléackev dxpiBds
Ta wept Tov “Inood, not rod xuplov as in
the received text.

5 The miorevoayres in xix. 1 is slightly
ambiguous, and some expressions in
the passage might suggest the oppo-
site: but wabnrds seems decisive, for
the word would not be used absolutely
except of Christian disciples; comp.
vi. I, 2, 7, ix. 10, 19, 26, 38, and fre.
quently.

THE ESSENES: 403

impulse towards Christianity ; but to others it represented a widely
different form of belief and practice. The Gospel of St John was Professed
written, according to all tradition, at Ephesus in the later years of ae ;
the first century. Again and again the Evangelist impresses on his ‘ate.
readers, either directly by his own comments or indirectly by the —
course of the narrative, the transient and subordinate character of

John’s ministry. He was not the light, says the Evangelist, but

came to bear witness of the light’. He was not the sun in the
heavens : he was only the waning lamp, which shines when kindled

from without and burns itself away in shining. His light might well

gladden the Jews while it lasted, but this was only ‘for a season *,’

John himself lost no opportunity of bearing his testimony to the

loftier claims of Jesus*, From such notices it is plain that in the
interval between the preaching of St Paul and the Gospel of St

John the memory of the Baptist at Ephesus had assumed a new
attitude towards Christianity. His name is no longer the sign of
imperfect appreciation, but the watchword of direct antagonism,

John had been set up as a rival Messiah to Jesus. In other

words, this Gospel indicates the spread of Hemerobaptist principles,

if not the presence of a Hemerobaptist community, in proconsular

Asia, when it was written. In two respects these Hemerobaptists
distorted the facts of history. They perverted John’s teaching, and The facts»
they misrepresented his office. His baptism was no more a single Peres
rite, once performed and initiating an amendment of life; it was a by them.
daily recurrence atoning for sin and sanctifying the person*, He

1 John i. 8. ‘

2 John vy. 35 éxeios jv 6 Adxvos 6
katbuevos Kal dalywy x.7.’. The word
xalew is not only ‘to burn’, but not
unfrequently also ‘to kindle, to set on
fire’, as e.g. Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 12 of
Got dvacrdvres mip Exatov; so that 6
Katduevos May mean either ‘which
burns away’ or ‘which is lighted’.
With the former meaning it would de-
note the transitoriness, with the latter
the derivative character, of John’s
ministry. There seems no reason for
excluding either idea here. Thus the
whole expression would mean ‘the
lamp which is kindled and burns away,
and (only so) gives light’. For an ex-
ample of two verbs or participles joined
together, where the second describes a

result conditional upon the first, see
1 Pet. ii. 20 ef duaprdvovres kal Koda-
gifduevoe Uromevelre...el dyaborootvres
kal rdoxovres Yromevetre, 1 Thess. iv. 1
as det mepiraretv kal dpécxew Oeg.

3 See John i. 15—34, iii. 23—30,
Vv. 33 8q.: comp. x. 41, 42. This
aspect of St John’s Gospel has been
brought out by Ewald Jahrb. der Bibl,
Wissensch, 111. p. 156 8q.3 see also
Geschichte vit. p. 152 sq., die Johan-
neischen Schriften p. 13. There is
perhaps an allusion to these ‘ disciples
of John’ in 1 Joh, v. 6 ov« év 7@ dare
pbvov, GAN év TH UOaTt Kal év TOalyare*
kal 7d mveDua x.7.d.; comp. Acts i. 5,
xi. 16, xix. 4.

* Apost. Const. vi. 6; comp. § 23.
See p. 402, note r.

26—2

404

Spread of
Hemero-
baptist
principles.

A wrong
use made
of John’s
name.

THE ESSENES.

himself was no longer the forerunner of the Messiah; he was the
very Messiah’. In the latter half of the first century, it would
seem, there was a great movement among large numbers of the
Jews in favour of frequent baptism, as the one purificatory rite
essential to salvation. Of this superstition we have had an instance
already in the anchorite Banus to whom Josephus attached himself
as a disciple. Its presence in the western districts of Asia Minor
is shown by a Sibylline poem, dating about A.D. 80, which I have
already had occasion to quote*. Some years earlier these sectarians
are mentioned by name as opposing James the Lord’s brother and
the Twelve at Jerusalem®. Nor is there any reason for questioning
their existence as a sect in Palestine during the later years of the
Apostolic age, though the source from which our information comes
is legendary, and the story itself a fabrication. But when or how
they first connected themselves with the name of John the Baptist,
and whether this assumption was made by all alike or only by one
section of them, we do not know. Such a connexion, however false
to history, was obvious and natural; nor would it be difficult to
accumulate parallels to this false appropriation of an honoured name.
Baptism was the fundamental article of their creed; and John was
the Baptist of world-wide fame. Nothing more than this was
needed for the choice of an eponym. From St John’s Gospel
it seems clear that this appropriation was already contemplated,
if not completed, at Ephesus before the first- century had drawn
to a close. In the second century the assumption is recognised
as a characteristic of these Hemerobaptists, or Baptists, as they are

once called*, alike by those who allow and those who deny its

1 Clem. Recogn. i. 54 ‘ex discipulis Galatians pp. 330, 367). Hegesippus

Johannis, qui...magistrum suum veluti
Christum praedicarunt,’ ib. § 60 ‘Ecce
unus ex discipulis Johannis adfirmabat
Christum Johannem fuisse, et non Je-
sum; in tantum, inquit, ut et ipse
Jesus omnibus hominibus et prophetis
majorem esse pronuntiaverit Johan-
nem etc.’; see also § 63.

2 See above, p. 96.

3 Clem. Recogn. 1. ec. This portion
of the Clementine Recognitions is ap-
parently taken from an older Judaizing
romance, the Ascents of James (see

also (in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22) mentions
the Hemerobaptists in his list of Jewish
sects; and it is not improbable that
this list was given as an introduction
to his account of the labours and mar-
tyrdom of St James (see Euseb. H. E.
ii. 23). If so, it was probably derived
from the same source as the notice in
the Recognitions.

4 They are called Baptists by Justin
Mart. Dial. 10, p. 307 4. He mentions
them among other Jewish sects, with-
out however alluding to John.

THE ESSENES. 405
justice '. Even in our age the name of ‘John’s disciples’ has been

given, though wrongly given, to an obscure sect in Babylonia, the
Mandeans, whose doctrine and practice have some affinities to the

older sect, and of whom perhaps they are the collateral, if not the

direct, descendants’.

(5) Of the connexion between this sect and John the Baptist (b) Their
‘we have been able to give a probable, though necessarily hypothe- me
tical account. But when we attempt to determine its relation to Essenes.
the Essenes, we find ourselves entangled in a hopeless mesh of
perplexities. The notices are so confused, the affinities so subtle,
the ramifications so numerous, that it becomes a desperate task to .
distinguish and classify these abnormal Jewish and Judaizing heresies.

One fact however seems clear that, whatever affinities they may have

had originally, and whatever relations they may have contracted They were

1 By the author of the Recognitions
(i. c.) who denies the claim; and by
the author of the Homilies (see below,
p. 406, note 3), who allows it.

2 These Mandeans are a rapidly di-
minishing sect living in the region
about the Tigris and the Euphrates,
south of Bagdad. Our most exact
knowledge of them is derived from
Petermann (Herzog’s Real-Encyklo-
pddie s. vv. Mendiaer, Zabier, and
Deutsche Zeitschrift 1854 p. 181 sq.,
1856 p. 331 84-5 342 8q., 363 8q., 386 8q.)
who has had personal intercourse
with them; and from Chwolson (die
Ssabier u. der Ssabismus 1. p. 100 8q.)
who has investigated the Arabic autho-
rities for their earlier history. The
names by which they are known are
(1) Mendeans, or more properly Man-
deans, S111 Mandayé, contracted
from NNT N73 Manda déchayé ‘the
word of life.’ This is their own name
among themselves, and points to their
Gnostic pretentions. (2) Sabeans, Tsa-
biyun, possibly from the root YAY ‘to
dip’ on account of their frequent lus-
trations (Chwolson 1. p. r10; but see
Galatians p. 325), though this is
not the derivation of the word which
they themselves adopt, and other ety-
mologies have found favour with some

recent writers (see Petermann Herzog’s.

Real-Encykl, Suppl. xvi11. p. 342 8. V.

Zabier). This is the name by which
they are known in the Koran and in

Arabic writers, and by which they call

themselves when speaking to others.
(3) Nasoreans, NNN) Natsdrayé,
This term is at present confined to
those among them who are dis-
tinguished in knowledge or in business.
(4) ‘Christians of St John, or Disci-
ples of St John’ (i.e. the Baptist).
This name is not known among them-
selves, and was incorrectly given to
them by European travellers and mis-
sionaries, At the same time John the
Baptist has a very prominent place in
their theological system, as the one
true prophet. On the other hand
they are not Christians in any sense.
These Mandeans, the true Sabeans,
must not be confused with the false
Sabeans, polytheists and star-wor-
shippers, whose locality is Northern
Mesopotamia. Chwolson (1. p. 139 84.)
has shown that these last adopted the
name in the gth century to escape
persecution from the Mohammedans,
because in the Koran the Sabeans, as
monotheists, are ranged with the Jews
and Christians, and viewed in a more
favourable light than polytheists. The
name however has generally been ap-
plied in modern times to the false
rather than to the true Sabeans.

*

at first

406

distinct,
if notanta-
gonistic.

But after
the de-
struction
of the
Temple

THE ESSENES.

afterwards with one another, the Hemerobaptists, properly speaking,
were not Essenes. The Sibylline poem which may be regarded as
in some respects a Hemerobaptist manifesto contains, as we saw,
many traits inconsistent with pure Essenism’. In two several accounts,
the memoirs of Hegesippus and the Apostolic Constitutions, the
Hemerobaptists are expressly distinguished from the Essenes*, In an
early production of Judaic Christianity, whose Judaism has a strong
Essehe tinge, the Clementine Homilies, they and their eponym are
condemned in the strongest language. The system of syzygies, or
pairs of opposites, is a favourite doctrine of this work, and in these
John stands contrasted to Jesus, as Simon Magus to Simon Peter, as
the false to the true; for according to this author’s philosophy
of history the manifestation of the false always precedes the mani-
festation of the true®*, And again, Epiphanius speaks of them as
agreeing substantially in their doctrines, not with the Essenes, but
with the Scribes and Pharisees*. His authority on such a point
may be worth very little ; but. connected with other notices, it should
not be passed over in silence. Yet, whatever may have been their
differences, the Hemerobaptists and the Essenes had one point of
direct contact, their belief in the moral efficacy of lustrations. When
the temple and polity were destroyed, the shock vibrated through
the whole fabric of Judaism, loosening and breaking up existing
More es-
pecially the cessation of the sacrificial rites must have produced
a profound effect equally on those who, like the Essenes, had con-
demned them already, and on those who, as possibly was the case

societies, and preparing the way for new combinations.

1 See p. 96 sq. point in this writer’s theory, that in
2 Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. EZ. iv. 22, the syzygies the true and the false are
Apost. Const. vi. 6. So also the the male and female principle respect-

Pseudo-Hieronymus in the Indiculus
de Haeresibus (Corp. Haeres. 1. p. 283,
ed. Oehler).

3 Clem. Hom. ii. 23 "Iwdwyns tis
eyévero tyuepoBamrioris, ds Kal Tod Kv-
plov juGv “Inood xara tov ris ovguylas
Abyov éyévero mpbodos. It is then
stated that, as Christ had twelve lead-
ing disciples, so John had thirty.
This, it is argued, was a providential
dispensation—the one number repre-
gents the solar, the other the lunar
period; and so they illustrate another

ively. Among these 30 disciples he
places Simon Magus. With this the
doctrine of the Mandeans stands in
direct opposition. They too have their
syzygies, but John with them repre-
sents the true principle. ,

4 Haer, xvii, 1 (p. 37) toa Taév ypapy-
Karéwv kat Papicalwy dpovedca. But
he adds that they resemble the Sad-
ducees ‘not only in the matier of the
resurrection of the dead, but also
in their unbelief and in the other
points,’

a Eee

THE ESSENES. 407

with the Hemerobaptists, had hitherto remained true to the orthodox
ritual. One grave obstacle to friendly overtures was thus removed ;

and a fusion, more or less complete, may have been the consequence.

At all events the relations of the Jewish sects must have been there may
materially affected by this great national crisis, as indeed we know to peri,
have been the case. In the confusion which follows, it is impossible

to attain any clear view of their history. At the beginning of the

second century however this pseudo-baptist movement. received a fresh

impulse from the pretended revelation of Elchasai, which came from

the farther East’, Henceforth Elchasai is the prominent name in

the history of those Jewish and Judaizing sects whose proper home

is east of the Jordan’, and who appear to have reproduced, with

various modifications derived from Christian and Heathen sources,

the Gnostic theology and the pseudo-baptist ritual of their Essene
predecessors. It is still preserved in the records of the only extant

people who have any claim to be regarded as the religious heirs of the

Essenes. Elchasai is regarded as the founder of the sect of Mandeans*.

(ii) But, if great weight has been attached to the supposed (ii) James
connexion of John the Baptist with the Essenes, the case of James the all ie
Here,
it is said, we have an indisputable Essene connected by the closest
family ties with the Founder of Christianity. James is reported to invested
have been holy from his birth; to have drunk no wine nor strong so cn
drink ; to have eaten no flesh ; to have allowed no razor to touch his racteris-_
head, no oil to anoint his body; to have abstained from using the rise
Here

we have a description of Nazarite practices at least and (must it not.

Lord’s brother has been alleged with still more confidence.

bath; and lastly to have worn no wool, but only fine linen‘,

be granted) of Essene tendencies also. |
But what is our authority for this description? The writer, from
whom the account is immediately taken, is the Jewish-Christian his-

1 See Galatians p. 324 sq. on this ples, the male and female, This no-

|

Book of Elchasai.

2 See above, p. 374.

3 See Chwolson 1. p. 112 8q., I.
p- 5438q. TheArabic writer En-Nedim,
who lived towards the close of the
tenth century, says that the founder
of the Sabeans (i.e. Mandeans) was

El-chasaich ( mn \) who taught

the doctrine of two coordinate princi-

tice, as far as it goes, agrees with the
account of Elchasai or Elxai in Hip-
polytus (Haer. ix. 13 sq.) and Epipha-
nius (Haer. xix. 1 sq.). But the deri-
vation of the name Elchasai given by
Epiphanius (Haer. xix. 2) ddvayus Kexa-.
uupeérg (1D OM) is different-and pro-
bably correct (see Galatians p. 325).

¢ Hegesippus:in Euseb. H. E. ii. 23.

408

But the
account
comes
from
untrust-
worthy
sources.

°
§

No Essene
features in
the true
portraits
of James
or of the
earliest
disciples,

THE ESSENES.

torian Hegesippus, who flourished about A.p. 170. He cannot there.
And
his whole narrative betrays its legendary character. Thus his account

fore have been an eye-witness of the facts which he relates.

of James’s death, which follows immediately on this description, is
highly improbable and melodramatic in itself, and directly con-
tradicts the contemporary notice of Josephus in its main facts’.
From whatever source therefore Hegesippus may have derived his
information, it is wholly untrustworthy. Nor can we doubt that he
was indebted to one of those romances with which the Judaizing
Christians of Essene tendencies loved to gratify the natural curiosity of
their disciples respecting the first founders of the Church’. In like
manner Essene portraits are elsewhere preserved of the Apostles Peter*®
and Matthew* which represent them as living on a spare diet of
herbs and berries.
the true source of this description in Hegesippus, and that it is taken
from the ‘Ascents of James’, a Judeo-Christian work stamped,
as we happen to know, with the most distinctive Essene features®.
But if we turn from these religious novels of Judaic Christianity
to earlier and more trustworthy sources of information—to the
Gospels or the Acts or the Epistles of St Paul—we fail to discover
the faintest traces of Essenism in James. ‘The historical James,’
says a recent writer, ‘shows Pharisaic but not Essene sympathies ’.’
This is true of James, as it is true of the early disciples in the mother
Church of Jerusalem generally. The temple-ritual, the daily sacrifices,
suggested no scruples to them. The only distinction of meats, which
they recognised, was the distinction of animals clean and unclean as
laid down by the Mosaic law. The only sacrificial victims, which
they abhorred, were victims offered to idols. They took their part in
the religious offices, and mixed freely in the common life, of their
fellow-Israelites, distinguished from them only in this, that to their
Hebrew inheritance they superadded the knowledge of a higher truth

I believe also that I have elsewhere pointed out -

1 See Galatians p. 366 sq.

2 See Galatians p. 324.

3 Clem. Hom. xii. 6, where St Peter
is made to say dprw pdvy kai édalas
xpGuat, kal oraviws Aaxdvois; comp.
XV. 7 Vdaros pdvou kal dprov.

4 Clem. Alex. Paedag. ii. 1 (p. 174)
omeppdruv kat dxpodptwy Kal Aaxdvwv
divev xpedw perehduBaver.

5 See Galatians p. 367, note.

6 Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 16) men-
tions two points especially, in which
the character of this work is shown:
(1) It represented James as condemn-
ing the sacrifices and the fire on the
altar (see above, pp. 371—373): (2) It
published the most unfounded calum-
nies against St Paul.

7 Lipsius, Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexicon,

p- I9I.

7 at)

THE ESSENES. 409

and the joy of a better hope. It was altogether within the sphere of
orthodox Judaism that the Jewish element in the Christian brother-
hood found its scope. Essene peculiarities are the objects neither
of sympathy nor of antipathy. In the history of the infant Church
for the first quarter of a century Essenism is as though it were not.

But a time came, when all this was changed. Even as early as the Essene
year 58, when St Paul wrote to the Romans, we detect practices in the @Auences

visible be-
Christian community of the metropolis, which may possibly have been fore the

due to Essene influences’. Five or six years later, the heretical ranger

teaching which threatened the integrity of the Gospel at Colossee Stolic age.

shows that this type of Judaism was already strong enough within

the Church to exert a dangerous influence on its doctrinal purity.

Then came the great convulsion—the overthrow of the Jewish polity

and nation. This was the turning-point in the relations between

Essenism and Christianity, at least in Palestine. The Essenes were Conge-

extreme sufferers in the Roman war of extermination, It seems abgames \
probable that their organization was entirely broken up. Thus cast war.

adrift, they were free to enter into other combinations, while the

shock of the recent catastrophe would naturally turn their thoughts
into new channels. At the same time the nearer proximity of the 7
Christians, who had migrated to Perea during the war, would bring

them into close contact with the new faith and subject them to its 2
influences, as they had never been subjected before*. But, whatever

may be the explanation, the fact seems certain, that after the destruc-

tion of Jerusalem the Christian body was largely reinforced from their | !
ranks, The Judaizing tendencies among the Hebrew Christians, which

hitherto had been wholly Pharisaic, are henceforth largely Essene.

2. If then history fails to reveal any such external connexion 2, Do the
with Essenism in Christ and His Apostles as to justify the opinion ji ih eos
that Essene influences contributed largely to the characteristic features dance 4:
of the Gospel, such a view, if tenable at all, must find its support in a con-
some striking coincidence between the doctrines and practices of the 7°12?
Essenes and those which its Founder stamped upon Christianity,

This indeed is the really important point; for without it the external
connexion, even if proved, would be valueless. The question is

not whether Christianity arose amid such and such circumstances, |
but how far it was created and moulded by those circumstances.

1 Rom. xiv. 2, 21. 2 See Galatians p. 322 sq.

410

(i) Observ-
ance of the
sabbath.

THE ESSENES.

(i) Now one point which especially strikes us in the Jewish
historian’s account of the Essenes, is their strict observance of
certain points in the Mosaic ceremonial law, more especially the
ultra-Pharisaic rigour with which they kept the sabbath. How far
their conduct in this respect was consistent with the teaching and
practice of Christ may be seen from the passages quoted in the

parallel columns which follow :

‘Jesus went on the sabbath-day
through the corn fields; and his disci-
ples began to pluck the ears of corn and
to eat}. ...But when the Pharisees saw
it, they said unto him, ‘Behold, thy
disciples do that which it is not lawiul
to do upon the sabbath-day. But he
said unto them, Have ye not read what
David did...The sabbath was made
for man, and not man for the sabbath.
Therefore the Son of Man is Lord even
of the sabbath-day...’ ’

‘It is lawful to do well on the sab-
bath-days’ (Matt. xii. r—12; Mark ii.
23—ili. 6; Luke vi. 1—11, xiv. 1—6.

1 Gratz (111. p. 233) considers this
narrative an interpolation made from
a Pauline point of view (‘eine pau-
linistische Tendenz-interpolation’),
This theory of interpolation, inter-
posing wherever the evidence is unfa-
vourable, cuts up all argument by the
roots. In this instance however Gratz
is consistently carrying out a princi-
ple which he broadly lays down else-
where. He regards it as the great
merit of Baur and his school, that
they explained the origin of the Gos-
pels by the conflict of two opposing
camps, the Ebionite and the Pauline.
‘By this master-key,’ he adds, ‘ criti-
cism was first put in a position to test
what is historical in the Gospels, and
what bears the stamp of a polemical
tendency (was einen tendentidsen po-
lemischen Charakter hat). Indeed
by this means the element of trust-
worthy history in the Gospels melts
down to a minimum’ (111. p. 224). In
other words the judgment is not to be
pronounced upon the evidence, but

‘And they avoid...touching any work
(épdrrecOat Epywr) on the sabbath-day
more scrupulously than any of the Jews
(Scapopwrara "Iovdalwy dmdytwy); for

the evidence must be mutilated to suit

the judgment. The method is not new. ©

The sectarians of the second century,
whether Judaic or anti-Judaic, had
severally their ‘master-key.’ The

master-key of Marcion was a conflict -

also—the antagonism of the Old and
New Testaments. Under his hands
the historical element in the New Tes-
tament dissolved rapidly. The mas-
ter-key of the anti-Marcionite writer
of the Clementine Homilies was like-
wise a conflict, though of another
kind—the conflict of fire and water, of
the sacrificial and the baptismal sys-
tems. Wherever sacrifice was men-
tioned with approval, there was a
‘Tendenz-interpolation’ (see above,
p. 372 sq.). In this manner again the
genuine element in the Old Testament
melted down to a minimum.

2 Gratz however (111. p. 228) sees a
coincidence between Christ’s teaching
and Essenism in this notice. Not to
do him injustice, I will translate his
own words (correcting however several

er ns eee

—_—

THE ESSENES.

See also a similar incident in Luke
xiii. ro—17).

‘The Jews therefore said unto him
that was cured; It is the sabbath-day;
it.is not lawful for thee to carry thy
bed. But he answered them, He that
made me whole, the same said unio
me, Take up thy bed and walk...,
Therefore the Jews did persecute Jesus
and sought to slay him, because he
did these things. on the sabbath-day.
But Jesus answered them, My Father
worketh hitherto, and I work, eic,
(John v, 1o—i8$; comp, vii. 22, 23).’

‘And it was the sabbath-day when
Jesus made the clay, and opened his
eyes...... Therefore said some of the
Pharisees, This man is not of God, be-
cause he keepeth not the sabbath-day
(John ix, 14, 16),’

they do not venture so much as to move
a vessel?, nor to perform the most ne-
cessary offices of life (B. J. ii. 8, 9).’

AL

(ii) But there were other points of ceremonial observance, in (ii) Lus-

which the Essenes superadded to the law. Of these the most re- Sg ca
markable was their practice of constant lustrations. In this respect yt
nial OD- \

the Pharisee was sufficiently minute and scrupulous in his obser- gervances.
vances ; but with the Essene these ablutions were the predominant
feature of his religious ritual. Here again it will be instructive ‘

to compare the practice of Christ and His disciples with the practice

of the Essenes.

‘And when they saw some of his
disciples eat bread with defiled (that
is to say, unwashen) hands; for the
Pharisees and all the Jews, except
they wash their hands oft (zvyu7), eat
not...The Pharisees and scribes asked
him, Why walk not thy disciples ac-
cording to the tradition of the elders

misprints in the Greek): ‘For the con-
nexion of Jesus with the Essenes com-
pare moreover Mark xi. 16 cal od« fjgpuev
6 "Inoots wa mis Sievéyxy oxedos did Tod
lepod with Josephus B.J. ii. 8. 9 aN
‘ov5e oxedds Te weTaxwijca Oappotow (ob
*Eocain).’ He does not explain what
this notice, which refers solely to the
scrupulous observance of the sabbath,
has to do with the profanation of the
temple, with which the passage in the

‘So they wash their whole body
(darodovovrat 7d c@ua) in cold water;
and after this purification (dyvelav)...
being clean (xafapol) they come to the
refectory (to dine)......And when they
have returned (from their day’s work)
they sup in like manner (B. J. ii.
8. 5).’

Gospel is alone concerned. I have
seen Gratz’s history described as a
‘masterly’ work. The first requisites
in a historian are accuracy in stating
facts and sobriety in drawing infer-
ences. Without these, it is difficult to
see what claims a history can have to
this honourable epithet: and in those
portions of his work, which I have
consulted, I have not found either.

412

Avoid-
ance of
strangers.

THE ESSENES.

seen But he answered...Ye hypocrites,
laying aside the commandment of God,
ye hold the tradition of men....’

‘Not that which goeth into the
mouth defileth the man; but that
which cometh out of the mouth, this
defileth the man...... Let them alone,
they be blind leaders of the blind...’

‘To eat with unwashen hands de-
fileth not the man (Matt. xv. 1—20,
Mark vii. 1—23).’

‘And when the Pharisee saw it, he
marvelled that he had not first washed
before dinner (rov dplorov). And the
Lord said unto him: Now do ye Pha-
risees make clean the outside of the
cup and the platter...Ye fools...behold
all things are clean unto you (Luke
xi, 38—-41).’

‘After a year’s probation (the novice)
is admitted to closer intercourse (apoc-
evo &yy.ov TH Stalry), and the lustral
waters in which he participates have a
higher degree of purity (kal xabapwré-
pwv Tav pos ayvelay bddrwy meradap-

Bdve, § 7).

‘It is a custom to wash after it, as
if polluted by it (§ 9).’

‘Racked and dislocated, burnt and
crushed, and subjected to every in-
strument of torture... to make them
eat strange food (re ruv dov7Owyr)...
they were not induced to submit (§ 10).’

‘Exercising themselves in...divers
lustrations (duaddpas dyvelats...éumat-
Sor piBovmevot, § 12).’

Connected with this idea of external purity is the avoidance of

contact with strangers, as persons who would communicate cere-

monial defilement.
the Pharisee.

And here too the Essene went much beyond
The Pharisee avoided Gentiles or aliens, or those

whose profession or character placed them in the category of
‘sinners’; but the Essene shrunk even from the probationers and
inferior grades of his own exclusive community. Here again we
may profitably compare the sayings and doings of Christ with the

principles of this sect.

‘And when the scribes and Phari-
sees saw him eat with the publicans
and sinners they said unto the disci-
ples, Why eateth your Master with the
publicans and the sinners...’ (Mark
ii. 15 sq., Matth. ix. 10 sq., Luke v.
30 8q.).

‘They say...a friend of publicans
and sinners (Matth. xi. 19).’

‘The Pharisees and the scribes mur-
mured, saying, This man receiveth
sinners and eateth with them (Luke
XV;.2);°

‘They all murmured saying that he
was gone to be a guest with a man
that is a sinner (Luke xix. 7).’

‘And after this purification they
assemble in a private room, where no
person of a different belief (ray érepo-
ddfwv, i.e, not an Essene) is permitted
to enter ; and (so) being by themselves
and clean (airol xa@apol) they present
themselves at the refectory (devrvyr7-
pov), as if it were a sacred precinct

(§ 5).

THE ESSENES.

- *Behold, a woman in the city that
was a sinner...began to wash his feet
with her tears, and did wipe them
with the hairs of her head and kissed
his feet...... Now when the Pharisee
which had bidden him saw it, he spake
within himself, saying, This man, if

*And they are divided into four
grades according to the time passed
under the discipline: and the juniors
are regarded as so far inferior to the
seniors, that, if they touch them, the
latter wash their bodies clean (dzo-
AoverOat), aS if they had come in con-

he had been a prophet, would have tact with a foreigner (xa@drep ddXo-
known who and what manner of wo- ¢0Aqy ouppupévras, § 10).’
man this is that toucheth him; for
she is a sinner (Luke vii. 37 sq.).’

In all these minute scruples relating to ceremonial observances,
the denunciations which are hurled against the Pharisees in the
Gospels would apply with tenfold force to the Essenes,

413

(iii) If the lustrations of the Essenes far outstripped the en- (iii) As-
actments of the Mosaic law, so also did their asceticism. I have ceticism.

given reasons above for believing that this asceticism was founded on
a false principle, which postulates the malignity of matter and is
wholly inconsistent with the teaching of the Gospel’. But without
pressing this point, of which no absolutely demonstrative proof can be
given, it will be sufficient to call attention to the trenchant contrast
in practice which Essene habits present to the life of Christ. He

who ‘came eating and drinking’

and was denounced in consequence Eating

as ‘a glutton and a wine-bibber’,’ He whose first exercise of power 224 drink-

is recorded to have been the multiplication of wine at a festive enter-
tainment, and whose last meal was attended with the drinking of
wine and the eating of flesh, could only have excited the pity, if not
the indignation, of these rigid abstainers. And again, attention
should be directed to another kind of abstinence, where the contrast
is all the more speaking, because the matter is so trivial and the
scruple so minute.

‘My head with oil thou didst not ‘And they consider oil a pollution
anoint (Luke vii. 46).’ (xnd\téa), and though one is smeared

‘Thou, when thou fastest, anointthy involuntarily, he rubs his body clean
head (Matt. vi. 17).’ (cunxerat Td cpa, § 3).’

And yet it has been stated that ‘the Saviour of the world......
showed what is required for a holy life in the Sermon on the Mount
by a description of the Essenes*,’ |

But much stress has been laid on the celibacy of the Essenes;

1 See above, p. 87. - 2 Matt. xi. 19, Luke vii. 34.
8 Ginsburg Essenes p. 14.

414
Celibacy.

(iv) Avoid-
ance of the
Temple
sacrifices.

THE ESSENES.

and our Lord’s saying ‘in Matt. xix. 12 is quoted to establish an
identity of doctrine. Yet there is nothing special in the languagé
there used. Nor is there any close affinity between the stern
invectives against marriage which Josephus and Philo attribute to
the Essene, and the gentle concession ‘He that is able to receive it,
let him receive it.’ The best comment on our Lord’s meaning here
is the advice of St Paul’, who was educated not in the Essene, but
in the Pharisaic school. Moreover this saying must be balanced by
the general tenour of the Gospel narrative. When we find Christ
discussing the relations of man and wife, gracing the marriage
festival by His presence, again and again employing wedding ban-
quets and wedded life as apt symbols of the highest theological
truths, without a word of disparagement or rebuke, we see plainly
that we are confronted with a spirit very different from the narrow
rigour of the Essenes,

(iv) But not only where the Essenes superadded to the cere-
monial law, does their teaching present a direct contrast to the pheno-
mena of the Gospel narrative. The same is true also of those points
in which they fell short of the Mosaic enactments. I have already
discussed at some length the Essene abstention from the temple
sacrifices", There can, I think, be little doubt that they objected to
the slaughter of sacrificial victims altogether. But for my present
purpose it matters nothing whether they avoided the temple on
account of the sacrifices, or the sacrifices on account of the temple.
Christ did neither. Certainly He could not have regarded the
temple as unholy ; for His whole time during His sojourns at Jeru-
salem was spent within its precincts. It was the scene of His
miracles, of His ministrations, of His daily teaching*, And in like
manner it is the common rendezvous of His disciples after Him*.
Nor again does He evince any abhorrence of the sacrifices. On the
contrary He says that the altar consecrates the gifts®; He charges
the cleansed lepers to go and fulfil the Mosaic ordinance and offer
the sacrificial offerings to the priests®. And His practice also is

1 y Cor. vii. 26—31. John ii. 14 8q., V. 14, Vii. 14, Vili. 2,
2 See p. 371 sq. 20, 59, X. 23, Xi. §6, XVill. 20.
3 Matt. xxi. 12 8q., 23 8q., XXiv. 1.8q., 4 Luke xxiv. 53, Acts ii. 46, iii, x
Xxvi. 6s, Mark x1. 21,7684... 27, xi. 64.,;V.20 80), 42.
35, Xill. 1 8q., xiv. 49, Luke ii. 46, xix. 5 Matt. xxiii. 18 8q.: comp. V. 23, 24.

455 3%. 80.4 2: 97 64.) Xx. 53, 6 Matt. viii. 4, Marki. 44, Lukev. r4.

THE ESSENES. AIS

conformable to His teaching. He comes to Jerusalem regularly to Practice
attend the great festivals, where sacrifices formed the most striking wer Par
part of the ceremonial, and He himself enjoins preparation to be disciples.
made for the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb. If He repeats the
inspired warning of the older prophets, that mercy is better than
sacrifice’, this very qualification shows approval of the practice in

itself. Nor is His silence less eloquent than His utterances or His
actions. Throughout the Gospels there is not one word which can

be construed as condemning the sacrificial system or as implying a

desire for its cessation until everything is fulfilled.

(v) This last. contrast refers to the ceremonial law. But not (v) Denial
less wide is the divergence on an important point of doctrine. The oe
resurrection of the body is a fundamental article in the belief of the of the
early disciples. This was distinctly denied by the Hssenes*. How- .
ever gross and sensuous may have been the conceptions of the
Pharisees on this point, still they so far agreed with the teaching of
Christianity, as against the Essenes, in that the risen man could not,
as they held, be pure soul or spirit, but must necessarily be body

and soul conjoint.

Thus at whatever point we test the teaching and practice of our Some sup-

Lord by the characteristic tenets of Essenism, the theory of affinity Seat

fails. There are indeed several coincidences on which much stress ¢o2-
has been laid, but they cannot be placed in the category of distinct- cinien
ive features. They are either exemplifications of a higher morality,
which may indeed have been honourably illustrated in the Essenes,
but is in no sense confined to them, being the natural outgrowth of
the moral sense of mankind whenever circumstances are favourable.

Or they are more special, but still independent developments, which
owe their similarity to the same influences of climate and soil,
though they do not spring from the same root. To this latter class
belong such manifestations as are due to the social conditions of the
age or nation, whether they result from sympathy with, or from
repulsion to, those conditions.

Thus, for instance, much stress has been laid on the aversion to Simplicity
war and warlike pursuits, on the simplicity of living, and on the ake
feeling of brotherhood which distinguished Christians and Essenes love.
alike. But what is gained by all this? It is quite plain that

1 Matt. ix. 13, xil. 7. 2 See above, p. 88.

a Sey ai

ee eee eo
. ae
Seer al ie
ro Ne. 6

<<.

416 |

Prohi-
bition of
oaths.

THE ESSENES.

Christ would have approved whatever was pure and lovely in the
morality of the Essenes, just as He approved whatever was true in
the doctrine of the Pharisees, if any occasion had presented itself
when His approval was called for. But it is the merest assumption
to postulate direct obligation on such grounds. It is said however,
that the moral resemblances are more particular than this. There is
for instance Christ’s precept ‘Swear not at all...but let your commu-
nication be Yea, yea, Nay, nay.’ Have we not here, it is urged,
the very counterpart to the Essene prohibition of oaths’? Yet it
would surely be quite as reasonable to say that both alike enforce that
simplicity and truthfulness in conversation which is its own credential
and does not require the support of adjuration, both having the same
reason for laying stress on this duty, because the leaders of religious
opinion made artificial distinctions between oath and oath, as regards
their binding force, and thus sapped the foundations of public and
private honesty *®. And indeed this avoidance of oaths is anything
but a special badge of the*Essenes. It was inculcated by Pytha-
goreans, by Stoics, by philosophers and moralists of all schools*.
When Josephus and Philo called the attention of Greeks and Romans
to this feature in the Essenes, they were simply asking them to
admire in these practical philosophers among the ‘barbarians’ the
realisation of an ideal which their own great men had laid down.
Even within the circles of Pharisaism language is occasionally heard,
which meets the Essene principle half-way *.

And again ; attention has been called to the community of goods
in the infant Church of Christ, as though this were a legacy of Es-

senism. But here too the reasonable explanation is, that we have

1 Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 6 wav 7d pnbev br
avriav toxupbrepov Epxov* 7d dé duvvew
avrots mepiloraTat, XEtpov TL THs emvopklas
trodauBdavovtes’ Hin yap Kareyvaobal
gact Tov amicrovpevov diya Oeod, Philo
Omn. prob. lib. 12 (1. p. 458) Tot ge
Nobéou Selyuara mapéxovrar pupla...7d
dviporov x.7.. Accordingly Josephus
relates (Ant. xv. 10. 4) that Herod the
Great excused the Essenes from taking
the oath of allegiance to him. Yet
they were not altogether true to their
principles ; for Josephus says (B. J. ii.
8. 7), that on initiation into the sect
the members were bound by fearful
oaths (8pxous ppicwdes) to fulfil certain

conditions; and he twice again in the
same passage mentions oaths (duvdovar,
TotovTo.s Spko.s) in this connexion.

2 On the distinctions which the
Jewish doctors made between the va-
lidity of different kinds of oaths, see
the passages quoted in Lightfoot and
Schottgen on Matt. v. 338q. The Tal-
mudical tract Shebhuoth tells its own
tale, and is the best comment on the
precepts in the Sermon on the Mount.

3 See e.g. the passages in Wetstein
on Matt. v. 37.

4 Baba Metsia 49 a. See also Light-
foot on Matt. v. 34.

THE ESSENES. 417

an independent attempt to realise the idea of brotherhood—an
4 attempt which naturally suggested itself without any direct imitation,
F but which was soon abandoned under the pressure of circumstances.
_ Indeed the communism of the Christians was from the first wholly
unlike the communism of the Essenes. The surrender of property
_ with the Christians was not a necessary condition of entrance into
an order ; it was a purely voluntary act, which might be withheld
without foregoing the privileges of the brotherhood’. And the com-
’ mon life too was obviously different in kind, at once more free and
' more sociable, unfettered by rigid ordinances, respecting individual
_ liberty, and altogether unlike a monastic rule.

4 Not less irrelevant is the stress, which has been laid on an- Prohi-
_ other point of supposed coincidence in the social doctrines of the two Lea '
- communities. The prohibition of slavery was indeed a highly honour-
- able feature in the Essene order’, but it affords no indication of a
direct connexion with Christianity. It is true that this social insti-
é ; tution of antiquity was not less antagonistic to the spirit of the
_ Gospel, than it was abhorrent to the feelings of the Essene ; and ulti-
_ mately the influence of Christianity has triumphed over it. But the
immediate treatment of the question was altogether different in the
two cases. The Essene brothers proscribed slavery wholly; they
produced no appreciable results by the proscription. The Christian
Apostles, without attempting an immediate and violent revolution
in society, proclaimed the great principle that all men are equal in
Christ, and left it to work. It did work, like leaven, silently but
| surely, till the whole lump was leavened. In the matter of slavery
| the resemblance to the Stoic is much closer than to the Essene’.
The Stoic however began and ended in barren declamation, and no
practical fruits were reaped from his doctrine.

Moreover prominence has been given to the fact that riches are Respect
decried, and a preference is given to the poor, in the teaching of our sos
| Lord and His Apostles, Here again, it is urged, we have a dis-
tinctly Essene feature. We need not stop to enquire with what
limitations this prerogative of poverty, which appears in the Gospels,
must be interpreted; but, quite independently of this question, we may

1 Acts v. 4. Pp. 632 ot dvipdrodov, Jos. Ant. xviii.
2 Philo Omn. prob. lib. § 12 (1. p. 1. 5 obre dobAwy érirndevover Krfjiow.
458) dovdAbs Te wap’ adrois obde els éorw 3 See for instance the passages from

GAN’ ArevOepor wires K.T.r., Fragm. u. Seneca quoted in Philippians p. 307.
COL, 27

418

The
preaching
of the
Kingdom
wrongly
ascribed
to the
Essenes,

The Es-
senes not
prophets,
but for-
tune-tell-
ers.

THE ESSENES.

fairly decline to lay any stress on such a coincidence, where all other
indications of a direct connexion have failed. The Essenes, pursuing a
simple and ascetic life, made it their chief aim to reduce their material
wants as far as possible, and in doing so they necessarily exalted
poverty. Ascetic philosophers in Greece and Rome had done the
same. Christianity was entrusted with the mission of proclaiming
the equal rights of all men before God, of setting a truer standard of
human worth than the outward conventions of the world, of protest-
ing against the tyranny of the strong and the luxury of the rich,
of redressing social inequalities, if not always by a present compen-
sation, at least by a future hope. The needy and oppressed were the
special charge of its preachers. It was the characteristic feature of
the ‘Kingdom of Heaven,’ as described by the prophet whose words
gave the keynote to the Messianic hopes of the nation, that the glad
tidings should be preached to the poor’. The exaltation of poverty
therefore was an absolute condition of the Gospel.

The mention of the kingdom of heaven leads to the last point
on which it will be necessary to touch before leaving this subject.
‘The whole ascetic life of the Essenes,’ it has been said, ‘aimed only
at furthering the Kingdom of Heaven and the Coming Age.’ Thur
John the Baptist was the proper representative of this sect. ‘From
the Essenes went forth the first call that the Messiah must shortly
appear, The kingdom of heaven is at hand”.
the kingdom of heaven unquestionably went forth from the Essenes’*.
For this confident assertion there is absolutely no foundation in fact ;
and, as a conjectural hypothesis, the assumption is highly improbable.

As fortune-tellers or soothsayers, the Essenes might be called
prophets; but as preachers of righteousness, as heralds of the king-
dom, they had no claim to the title. Throughout the notices in
Josephus and Philo we cannot trace the faintest indication of Mes-
sianic hopes. Nor indeed was their position at all likely to foster

such hopes*. The Messianic idea was built on a belief in the resur-

1 Ts. lxi. 1 evayyeNlcacbat mrrwyxols,
quoted in Luke iv. 18. There are
references to this particular part of the
prophecy again in Matt. xi. 5, Luke
vii. 22, and probably also in the beati-
tude paxdptoe of mrwxol x.7.d., Matt. v.
3, Luke vi. 20.

* Gratz Gesch. 11. p. 219.

540; Ds 470:

4 Lipsius Schenkel’s Bibel-Lexikon
s. v. Essier p. 190, Keim Jesus von
Nazarat. p. 303. Both these writers ex-
press themselves very decidedly against
the view maintained by Gratz. ‘The

Essene art of soothsaying,’ writes —

Lipsius, ‘has absolutely nothing to do

‘The announcement of —

——

—

THE ESSENES. | «419,

rection of the body. The Essenes entirely denied this doctrine.

‘The Messianic idea was intimately bound up with the national hopes

E nd sufferings, with the national life, of the Jews. The Essenes had

‘no interest in the Jewish polity ; they separated themselves almost They had
entirely from public affairs, The deliverance of the individual in the Heeler
‘shipwreck of the whole, it has been well said, was the plain watch- foe

word of Essenism’. How entirely the conception of a Messiah might si
4 be obliterated, where Judaism was regarded only from the side of a
“mystic philosophy, we see from the case of Philo. Throughout the
works of this voluminous writer only one or two faint and doubtful
allusions to a personal Messiah are found*. The philosophical tenets

of the Essenes no doubt differed widely from those of Philo; but in
‘i the substitution of the individual and contemplative aspect of reli-
4 gion for the national and practical they were united ; and the effect
q in obscuring the Messianic idea would be the same. When there-
“fore it is said that the prominence given to the proclamation of the

;

i Messiah’s kingdom is a main link which connects Essenism and
"i Christianity, we may dismiss the statement as a mere hypothesis,

r
Ms
i

with the Messianic prophecy.’ ‘Of all Gfrdrer’s treatment of the subject,

this,’ says Keim,’ ‘ there is no trace.’ Philot. p. 486 sq. The treatises which

1 Keim 1. c. bear on this topic are the de Praemiis

2 How little can be made out of et Poenis (1. p. 408, ed. Mangey) and

Philo’s Messianic utterances by one the de Execrationibus (1. p. 429). They

who is anxious to make the most pos- deserve to be read, if only for the nega.
Bible out of them, may be seen from tive results which they yield.

“unsupported by evidence and improbable in itself.

27-—2

420

ADDENDA.

ADDENDA.

TueE following collation of the text of the Epistle to the Laodi- ©
ceans in the Za Cava ms (see p. 282) was made by the Rev. J. ©
Wordsworth, Fellow of Brasenose. It reached my hands too late for —
insertion in its proper place (p. 287 sq). i

Explicit ad colossenses incipit aepistola ad laudicenses.

1 Apostolus] om. Laodiciae] laudiciae. 3 orationem omnem] |
homnem horationem. in operibus eius] om. in diem] in diae. ©
4 neque destituant etc.] neque destituit vos quorundam vaniloquentia insinu-
antium hut vos evertant. » ame] ha me. 5 ut qui...profectum] hut
qui sunt ex me perveniant ad profectum. operum etc.] hoperumque salutis
aeternae (om. vitae). 6 quibus] in quibus. ~~ 7 factum etc.] fletum
orationibus vestris est. administrante ete. 8 vivere] vere vita. 9 ut]
hut. unanimes] hunanimes. 10 Ergo etc.] ergo dilectissimi hut au-
distis praesentiam mei (om. ita) retinete. II operatur in vos] hoperatur
in vobis. 13 reliquum] om. sordidos etc.] sordidos in lucro homines,
sint petitiones. 15 amabilia] add. sunt. 16 Et quae] quae (om. et).
19 Domini Jhesu] domini nostri jhesu christi. 20 colosensibus et] om.
Colosensium] colossensium, |

The capitula of 1 Thessalonians follow immediately.

p- 338sq. The note on rpec Burns.

In an inscription given in Wood’s Lphesus, Inscr. vi. 1. p. 24, 1. 72,
mpecBevrépos is engraved for mpeoButépos. This example has the
highest value as an illustration of St Paul, since the inscription
belongs to the age of Trajan.

INDEX.

Abercius (Avircius), Bp. of Hierapolis,
P- 54 84.

Acts of the Apostles; passages ex-
plained, p. 23 (xiii. 4, xvi. 6); p. 95
(xix. 13, 19); D- 304 (xiv. 11)

sedificatoris, the sufferings of Christ
as, i, 24

Zflfric on the Epistle to Laodiceans,
p. 296

Alasanda or Alasadda, p. 390 sq.

Alexander of Tralles on charms, p. 92

Alexander Polyhistor, p. 83, 393

Alexandria, a supposed Buddhist es-
tablishment at, p. 390 sq.

Andrew, St, in Asia, p. 45

angelolatry condemned, p. ror, 103,
118, i. 16, ii. 10, 15, 18; forbidden
by the Council of Laodicea, p. 68

angelology of Cerinthus, p. 110; of
Essenism, p. 96; of the Jews, ii. 18

angels, orders of, i. 16

Anselm of Laon, p. 295

Antiochus the Great, colony of, in Asia
Minor, p. 19

Antiochus Theos refounds Laodicea,
P- 5

aorist, epistolary, iv. 8, Ph. 11, 19,21;
contrasted with perfect, i. 16

Apamea, p. 19, 20; Jews at, p. 21

Apocalypse, correspondences with St
Paul’s Epistles to Asia, 41 8q.

apocrypha, use of word, p. go, ii, 3

Apollinaris, see Claudius Apollinaris

Apollo Archegetes worshipped at Hie-
rapolis, p. 12

Apostolic Fathers, Christology of, p.

124

Apostolic Writings, Christology of, p.
1273:

Apphia, wife of Philemon, p. 306; the
name Phrygian, 306 sq.

Archippus, iv. 17; son of Philemon,
308 ; his office and abode, 309; re-
buke to, 43

Arian heresy in Hierapolis and Lao-
dicea, p. 64

Arian use of the expression ‘Firstborn
of all creation,’ i. 15

Aristarchus, iv. 10

Aristion, p. 45

Aristotle, on slavery, p. 313; definition
of ‘knowledge,’ ii. 3; of ‘ wisdom,’
i. 9

Armagh, Book of, p. 280, 282, 286

article, omission of the definite, i. 4

asah, a supposed derivation of Essenes,
P- 353, 362

Ascents of James, p. 408

Asceticism among the Jewish sects, p.
87; among Colossian heretics, p. 104;
Kssenes, p. 408; a result of Gnostic-
ism, p. 79

Aseis, a Laodicean title of Zeus, p. 8

Asia, meaning of, p. 19

Asia Minor, geography of, p. 1 sq. ;
list of writers on, p. 1: how divided
under the Romans, p. 7; a modern
hypothesis about Christianity in, p.
50

Asidwans, p. 355

asya, & Supposed derivation of Essene,
P- 352

Athanasius, on ‘Firstborn of all Crea-
tion,’ i. 15

422

Athens, slavery at, p. 320; a Buddhist
burnt alive at, p. 394

Augustine, on ‘Firstborn of all Crea-
tion,’ i. 15; on ‘wisdom and know-
ledge,’ ii. 3

dydirn, 6 ulds rijs dydans avrod, i. 13

dytos, i. 2

aywv, dywvla, aywriferOat, i, 29, ii. 1,
iv. 12

dderpds (6), i. x

adupety, lil. 21

aisxpodoyla, ili. 8

axabapola, ili. 5

adas, iv. 5

adnOela, 4 ddnOela Tod evayyeNrtov, i. 5;
év adnbelg, i. 6

d\Ad, in apodosis after el, ii. 5

Guwpos, 1. 22

dvataverOat, Ph. 7

dvam\npody, 1. 24

_ aVvEYKANTOS, 1, 22 ‘

aveyids, iv. 10

avnkely, iii. 18; 7d dvnxcv, Ph. 8

cvOpwrdperkot, ili. 22

dvtavamAnpooy, 1. 24

dvramddocts, iii. 24

dbparos, i, 16

amexdvecOat, il. 15

amékdvots, il. II

diréxew, Ph, 15

admndAoTpiwpévot, 1. 21

arobvicKkew, li. 20

dmokaradAdooev, i. 20, 21

drbxpudos, li. 3

drohbrpwots, 1. 14

dméxpnots, ii. 22

dmrecOat, li. 21

dpécxea, i. 10

apx7, applied to Christ, p. 41; i. 16, 18

avédvery, i. 6

autos éoruv, i. 17

ageldeca, li, 23

apyh, ll. 19

Gxetpotroinros, il. 11

axpnoros, Ph, 11

B (Cod. Vaticanus), excellence of, p.

247
Banaim, p. 369 sq.

INDEX.

Banus, p. 369, 400 sq.

Bardesanes, on Buddhists, p. 393 ; his
date, ib.

Barnabas, life of,iv. 10; epistle ascribed
to, ib.

basilica, iv. 15

Basilides, p, 265

Baur, p. 77, 81, 318

Bene-hakkeneseth, p. 367

Brahminism, p. 393, 394

Buddhism, assumed influence on Es-
Senism, p. 390 8q.; supposed esta-
blishment of, in Alexandria, p. 390;
unknown in the West, p. 391 sq.,
four steps of, p. 395 sq.

Buddhist at Athens, p. 394

Pérriopna, Barricpés, ii. 12

PapBapos, iii. 11

Bracpnula, iii. 8

Bovtrec Oat, Ph. 13

BpaBevery, iii, 15

Cabbala, see Kabbala

Cainites, p. 79

Calvin, iii. 8, p. 275, 318

Canonical writings and Papias, p. 52

Carpocratians, p. 79, 80

Cataphryges, p. 98

Cavensis, codex, p. 282, 420

celibacy, p. 375, 376, 413 8q.

Cerinthus, p. 107 sq.; Judaism of, p.
108; Gnosticism of, ib.; cosmogony
of, p. 109; Christology of, p. 111
sq.; pleroma of, p. 264

chaber, p. 364 sq.

Chagigah, on ceremonial purity, p.
365 8q.

Chalcedon, council of, p. 65

chasha, chashaim, a derivation of Es-
sene, Pp. 354 .

chesi, chasyo, a derivation of Essene,
P. 353 8q.; connexion with chasid, p.
360

chasid, a false derivation of Essene, p.
350 8q.

-Chasidim, p. 355, 357 8q. ; not & proper :

name for the Essenes, p. 358

‘chasin, chosin, a false derivation for

Essene, p. 351

INDEX.

chaza, chazya, a derivation of Essene,
P- 352 8q-

Chonos or Chona, p. 15, 71

Christ, the Person of, p. 34; St Paul’s
doctrine about, p. 41, 115 sq., i. 15—
20, li, g—15; the Word Incarnate,
Pp. Io1, 102; the pleroma in Him,
p. 102, i, 19, ii. 9, 10; life in Him,
the remedy against sin, p. 34, 120
sq.; His teaching and practice not
Tissene, p. 409 8q-

Christianity, not an outgrowth of Es-
senism, p. 397 8q.; in relation to
Epictetus, p. 13; to Gnosticism, p.
80; to slavery, p. 323 sq.

Christianity in Asia Minor, p, 50

Christianized Essenes, p. 89,90, 372 Sq.

Christians of St John, p. 405

Christology of Ep. to Col. p. 101, 122;
of other Apostolic writings, p. 123;
of succeeding ages, p. 124

Chronicon Paschale, p. 48, 61

Chrysostom, i. 13, 15, lil. 16, p. 274,
Ph. 15, p. 317

Cibotus, p. 21

Cibyratic convention, p. 7

circular letter—the Ep, to the Ephe-
sians—p. 37

Claudius, embassy from Ceylon in the
reign of, p. 395

Claudius Apollinaris, the name, p. 57
sq.; his works, p. 58 sq.

Clement of Alexandria, p. 79, 98, 1. 9,
15, ii. 8, iii. 5, 16, p. 393 Sq.

Clement of Rome (§ 7) i. 3; (§ 58)i. 11;
(§ 33) i. 153 (Ep. ii. $9), p. 104

Clementine Homilies, p. 372 sq., 375,
406

Clementine Recognitions, Pp. 404

Clermont, p. 3

collegia, iv. 15

Colosss#, orthography of, p. 16, i. 2;
situation, etc., p. 1 8q.; site, p. 13;
ancient greatness and decline, p. 15;
a Phrygian city, p. 18 sq.; Jewish
colony at, p.19; not visited by St
Paul when the epistle was written,
p. 23; Epaphras the evangelist of,
p- 29; intended visit of Mark to, p.

423
40; visit of St Paul to, p. 413 ob-
scurity of, p. 70; a suffragan see of
Laodicea, p. 6y; Turkish conquest
of, p. 71

Colossian heresy, nature of, p. 73 84-,
89, ii. 8; writers upon, p. 743 had
regard to the Person of Christ, p.
1123; relation to Gnosticism, p. 98 ;
St Paul’s answer to, p. 115 sq.

Colossians, Epistle to, p. 33; bearers
of, p. 35; salutations in, ib.; charge
respecting Laodicea, p. 36; written
by an amanuensis, iv. 18; Christo-
logy of, p. 122; style of, p. 125;
analysis of, p. 126; various read-
ings, see readings

colossinus, p. 4

community of goods, p. 416

Concord of the Laodiceans and Ephe-
sians, etc., Pp. 31

congregation, the holy, at J aiteas
Pp. 367

Constantine, legislation of, p. 327

Constantinople, Council of, p. 65

conventus, Pp. 7

Corinth, visit of St Paul to, during his
residence at Ephesus, p. 30

Corinthians, First Epistle to; passages
explained: (i. 19) i. g; (ii. 6, 7) i.
28; (v.9) iv. 16; (vii. 21) p. 324 8q.; /
(viii. 6) p. 1223 (ix. 24) ii. 185 (xi. 7)
i. 153 (xiii. 3) p. 3943 (xiii. 12) i. 9;
(xv. 24) i. 16

Corinthians, Second Epistle to; pas-
sages explained: (i. 7) i. 243 (ili. 6)
i. 12; (iv; 4) i. 153 (v.14, 15) li. 20;
(vi. 1) i. 63 (vi. 4, 6) i. x15 (vill. 9)
i, 6; (ix. 12) ib.; (xiii. 5) i. 27

Cornelius a Lapide, p. 233, 276°

Creation, Gnostic speculations about,
p. 78 sq.; Essene do., p. go

Cyril of Alexandria, p. 393

xaOws kal, i, 6, iii. 1

xa in both members of a comparison,
i. 6

Kat door, ii. 1

xawés and véos, ii. 10

kaxla, iii. 8

Kapropopetabat, i. 6

424

KaraBpaBevew, li. 18

Karevwiov avrod, 1. 22

KaroKely, 1. 19

keve.Barevery, li, 18

kegadh, 1. 18

kK\npovopla, lil. 24

KAfipos, i. 12

k\yrés, lil. 12

kowvwvla, Ph, 6

Koulfev, iii. 25

komidv, i, 29

Kopakéos, p. 4

Kéopos, il. 8

Kparety, li. 19

Kpdros, i. 11

kplvew, ii. 16

krtows, i. 15

kUptos, 6, (Christ) i. 10; (master), ili. 24

kup.orns, i. 16

XapaxTyp, i. 15

xaplverPat, ii. 13, ili, 13, Ph. 22

xdpts, i. 2, (7) iii. 163 fF xdpes TOD Beod,
16

xetpdypagor, ii. 14

Xpnororns, ili. 12

Damascene: see John Damascene

Darmstadiensis Codex, p. 282

dative (of instrument), ii. 7, iii. 16;
(of part affected), i. 4

Demas, p. 36, iv. 14, Ph. 24

Denizli, p. 7; earthquake at, p. 3

diocese, p. 7

Diogneius, Epistle to, i. 18

Dion Chrysostom, p. 81, 391

Diospolis, an old name of Laodicea,
p. 68

Divinity of Christ, p. ror sq., 116 8q.,
5 ie

Docets#, use of pleroma by, p. 271

dualism, p. 78, 87, 387

dyes of Colosse and the neighbour-
hood, p. 4

devypartfew, ii, 15

décputos, Ph. 1, 10

deopos, Ph. 13

Sd with gen., used of the Logos, p
122, i. 16, 20

Gtaxovla, Sudxovos, iv. 7, 17

INDEX..

biddoxewv, 1. 28

dtolkyows, p. 7 7

doyua, ii. 14

Soyparigey, ii. 20

doéa, i. 11, 27

dovrcs, Ph. 16; Sotdos “Inood Xporoi,
iV. 12

5ivapus, i. 16

Suvapouv, i. 11

Earthquakes in the valley of the Ly-

. cus, p. 38 ‘

Ebionite Christology of Cerinthus, p.IIo

Elchasai, founder of the Mandeans, P:
407

Elchasai, Book of, p. 375

elders, primitive, p. 368

Eleazar expels evil spirits, p. gt

English Church on the Epistle to Lao-
dicea, p. 296

English versions of the Epistle to Lao-
dicea, p. 297 sq.

Epaphras, p. 34; evangelist of Co-
loss, p. 29, 31; mission to St Paul,
Pp. 32, iv. 12, Ph. 23

Epaphroditus, p. 34

Ephesians, Epistle to; a. circular letter,
Pp. 37; readings in, haa once with
Epist. to Col. p. 246 sq.; passages
explained, i. 18 (i. 23); i ar (i. 16).
1.25 (1:58) ¢ Ml. (ibs 0) sil. 4- Cll.
1) sald, Si 23) ss Se (Os 2h)
He $4) (1.47) ¢-1b, YS (i aay) de 16
(iv90) fe 40 (e-7) 5 77 il, 87) 5
31,20 (15-96))5. 1¥0 16; 44-17) 2 av.
18 (i; 22) $ iv,10;-¥. 9 (ics) ve 32
(i. 26)

Ephesus, Council of, p. 65

Ephesus, St Paul at, p. 30, 95; exor-
cists at, p. 95

Epictetus, p. 13

Epiphanius, account of Cerinthus, p.
107; on the Nasareans, p. 373

epistolary aorist, Ph. r1, 19, 21

epulones of Ephesian Artemis called
Essenes, p. 96

Erasmus on the Epistle to Laodicea,
Pp. 299 ;

Tissene, meaning of term, p. 94; the

INDEX.

name, p. 349 8q.; Frankel’s theory,
P- 356 sq.

Essenes, p. 82, ii..8; list of writers
upon, p. 83; localities ‘of, p. 93;
asceticism of, p. 85; speculations of,

_ p. 87; exclusiveness of, p. 92; Jo-
sephus and Philo chief authorities
upon, p. 370; oath taken by, p. 362;
their grades, p. 365; origin and af-
finities, p. 355 sq.; relation to Chris-
tianity, p. 397 sq.; to Pharisaism, p.
IoI, 356; to Neopythagoreanism, p.

- 380 8q.; to Hemerobaptists, p. 402 8q.;
to Gnosticism, p. 92 sq.; to Parsism,

p. 387 sq.; to Buddhism, p. 3908q.;

avoidance of oaths, p. 415 8q.; for-
tune-tellers, p. 418; silence of New
Test. about, p. 398; relation to John
the Baptist, p. 400 sq.; to James the
Lord’s brother, p. 407 8q.3; Chris-
tianized Essenes, p. 89, 90, 372 Sq.
Essenism, p. 82; main features of, p.
83 sq.; compared with Christianity,
p- 409 8q.; the sabbath, p. 410;

lustrations, p. 411; avoidance of

strangers, p. 412; asceticism, celi-
bacy, p. 413; avoidance of the Tem-
ple, p. 414; denial of the resurrec-
tion of the body, p. 415; certain
supposed coincidences with Christ-
ianity, p. 415 sq.

Eusebius, on the earthquakes in the
valley of the Lycus, p. 39; his mis-
take respecting some martyrdoms,
p- 48; silence about quotations from
Canonical writings, p. 52; on tracts
against Montanism, p. 56; on the
Thundering Legion, p. 61; on Mar-
cellus, i. 15

evil, Gnostic theories about, p. 78

exorcists at Ephesus, p. 95

Ezra, restoration under, p. 353

éavrov and avrov, i. 20; and ddAjAw?,
iii. 13

éy#, Ph. 19

EOehoO pyoxela, li, 23

el ye, i. 23

elxay, 1. 15, iii, 11

elvat kaptropopovpevor, i. 6

425

els, i. 6, ii. 22, Ph. 6

éx Aaodiklas (rv), iv. 16

éxxAnola, iv. 15

éxXexr os, iii. 12

é\doyar, Ph. 18

édmls, i. 5

év, iv. 12; denoting the sphere, i. 4;
é&v atr@, i. 16; ev pepe, ii. 163 &
mavrt Oedjpart, iv.12; év Tac, i. 18;
év rots &pyos, 1.21; év vuiv, i. 27,
ili. 16; év Xpior@, i. 2

evepyeiv, évepyetobat, i, 29

évt, iii. 11

e£aryopagecOat, iv. 5

éfarelpev, li. 14

éfovola, i. 13, 16

w (ol), iv. 5

éopr7, ii. 16

érvywadoxew, erlyvwots, p. 100, i. 6, 9,
Ph. 6

ériOupla, iii. §

éripevew, i. 23

émioToA} (7), iv. 16

érixopyyeiv, ii. 19

érrotxodopely, li. 7

épyaverOat, iii. 23

épebifery, iii. 21

épptvwmévot, ii. 7

epxecOat, iii. 6

evdpecros, ili. 20

evdoxla, evdoxely, i. 19 !

evxapiorely, evxaptorta, ii. 7, i. 33; evxd-
ptoros, ill. 15

"Edéoa ypdupara, Pp. 95

éxew, Ph. 17

éxOpol, i. 21

F (Codex Augiensis) relation to G, p.
279

Firstborn of all Creation, i. 15

Flaccus, p. 20

Frankel on the Essenes, p. 356 sq.

G (Codex Boernerianus) relation to F,
P- 279

Galatia, meaning of, in St Paul and St
Luke, p. 24

Galatian and Colossian Judaism com-

_ pared, p. 105, i. 28

426

Galatians, Epistle to; passages ex-
plained, i. 24 (Gal. ii. 20), i. 28 (iv.
19), ii. 8 (iv. 3)

Galen, ii. 19, 20

Ginsburg (Dz), p. 88, 363 8q., 355, 397;
8q-, 413

Gnostic, p. 80 sq.

Gnostic element in Colossian heresy,
P- 73 84-

Gnostic sects, use of pleroma by, p.
264 Sq.

Gnosticism, list. of writers on, p. 773

definition of, p. 76 sq.; intellectual
exclusiveness of, p. 77; speculations
of, p. 77 8q.; practical errors of, 79
sq.; independent of Christianity, p.
80; relation to Judaism, p. 81; to
Essenism, p.g3; toColossian heresy,
p- 98

Gratz, P. 351, 359, 397, 399) 410, 411

Greece, slavery in, p. 320 :

Gregory the Great on the Epistle to
the Laodiceans, p. 295

guild of dyers, p. 4

Tapudvas, p. 392

yaots, i. 9, li. 3

yvworTikos, p. 81

Haymo of Halberstadt, on the Epistle
to the Laodiceans, p. 295

Hebrew slavery, p. 319 sq.

Hebrews, Epistle to the; passages ex-
plained, i. rr (Heb. xi. 34); i. 15 (i.
2, 3, 6)

Hefele on the date of Claudius Apolli-
naris, p. 60

Hemerobaptists, p. 402 sq.

Hervey of Dole, on the Epistle to the
Laodiceans, p. 295

Hierapolis, p.2, 9 ; modern name, p.9;
physical features of, p. 10; a fa-
mous watering place, p. 11; the
Plutonium at, p.123 dyes of, p. 4;
birthplace of Epictetus, p. 13 ; po-
litical relations of, p. 18; attrac-
tions for Jews, p. 22; a Christian
settlement, p. 45; Philipof Bethsaida
at, p. 45 8q.; Council at, p. 59;
Papias, bishop of, p. 48sq.; Abercius,

INDEX.

bishop of, p. 54 sq.; Claudius Apolli-
naris, bishop of, p. 57 sq.

Hilgenfeld, p. 75 ; on the Essenes, p.
390 Sq.

James the Lord’s brother, p. 407 sq.

Jerome, p. 29; on St Paul’s parents,
P- 35; on the Epistle to the Laodi-
ceans, p. 293 8q.

Jesus Justus, iv. 11

Jews, sects of the, p. 82

imperfect, iii. 18

indicative after B\érew pi, ii. 8

infinitive of consequence, i. 10, iv. 3, 6

John (St) in Asia Minor, p. 41; Apoca-
lypse, passages explained, p. 41 (iii.
14—21)

John (St), Gospel, p. 403 (i. 8, v.35) ; Se-
cond Epistle, p. 305; Third Epistle, id.

John the Baptist, not an Essene, p.
400 8q.; disciples of, at Ephesus, p.
402; claimed by Hemerobaptists, p.
403 Sq.

John (St), Christians of, p. 405

John Damascene, p. 15

John of Salisbury on the Epistle to the
Laodiceans, p. 296

Josephus on Essenism, p. 369 sq.

Judaism and Gnosticism, p. 81

iva, iv. 16

*Iovoros, iv. Ir

isorns, iv. 1

Kabbala, p. 93, i. 16, ii. 8

Lanfranc on the Epistle to the Laodi-
ceans, p. 297

Laodicea, situation, p. 2; name and
history, p. 5; condition, p. 6; politi-
cal rank and relations, p. 7, 18; reli-
gious worship at, p.8; Council of, p.
66; ecclesiastical status, p. 69; dyes
of, p. 4; surnamed Trimetaria, p. 18;
the vaunt of, p. 44

Laodicea, the letter from, iv. 16, p.
274 SQ. . ;

Laodiceans, apocryphal Epistle to the,
p- 281 sq.; list of mss of, p. 283
sq.; Latin text of, p. 287; notes on,
p. 289 sq.; theory of a Greek ori-

INDEX.

ginal, p. 291; restoration of the |

Greek, p. 293; circulation of, p. 294
8q.; English prologue and versions
of, p. 298; strictures of Hrasmus on,
p. 209; opinions on the genuineness
of, p. 300

Latrocinium, see Robbers’ Synod.

Legio Fulminata, p. 61

legislation of Constantine on slavery,
Pp. 327

Logos, the, i. 15

Luke, St, iv. 14; his narrative of St
Paul’s third missionary journey, p.
24 8q.; makes a distinction between
Philip the Apostle and Philip the
Evangelist, p. 45, 59

lukewarmness at Laodicea, p. 42

lustrations of the Essenes, p. 413

Luther's estimate of the Epistle to
Philemon, p. 317

Lycus, district of the ; list of writers on,
p- 1 8q.; physical features of, p. 2
sq.; produce of, p. 4; subterranean
channel of the, p. 14; earthquakes
in the valley of the, p. 38 sq.

Lycus, churches of the, p. 1 sq.; evan-
gelised by Epaphras, p. 29 s8q.;
ecclesiastical status of, p. 69

Aaodtxla, iv. 13

Abyor €xew Tues, li. 23

Magic, forbidden by Council of Laodi-
cea, p. 69; among the Essenes, p.
90 8q., 377 8d.

magical books at Ephesus, p. 95

Mandeans, p. 405

Marcosians, p. 269

Mark (St) iv. 10; visits Colosse, p. 40

Matthew (St) Gospel of, accepted by
Cerinthus and the Ebionites, p. 108

Megasthenes, p. 392 8q.-

monasticism of the Essenes and Bud-
dhisis, p. 395

Monoimus, the Arabian, p. 273

Montanism, Claudius Apollinaris on,
P- 59; Phrygian origin of, p. 98

morning bathers, p. 368 sq., 402 sq.

Muratorian Fragment on the Epistle
to the Laodiceans, p. 292

427

paxpoOupla, i, 11, iii, 12
pepls, 1. 12

pwelav trovetcOa, Ph. 4
Hough, iii. 13
Movoyerns, i. 15
puoThptoy, i. 26

Naassenes, p. 271

Nasareans, Nasoreans, p. 372, 375, 405

Neander on Cerinthus, p. 108

Neopythagoreanism and Essenism, p.
380 Sq.

New Testament, relation of, to the Old

’ Testament, p. 118

Nicwa, Bishops of Hierapolis and Lao-
dicea at the Council of, p. 65

Nicetas Choniates, p. 71

Nicolaus of Damascus, p. 394

nominative with definite article for
vocative, iii. 18

Novatianism in Phrygia, p. 98

Nymphas, iv. 15, p. 31

veounvia, ii. 16

véos, lil. 10

vouvderetv, i. 28

vov with aorist, i. 21

Onesimus, p. 311, Ph. 10; at Rome,
p- 33; encounters St Paul, p. 312;
returns to Philemon, p. 35, 313 84.;
legendary history of, p. 316

Ophites, p. 81, 98, 271

olxovoula, i. 25

olxos, Thy Kar olxov, iv. 15

dpotwua, i, 25

dvacOat, dvalunv, Ph. 20

épyy, ili. 8

boris, ili. 5, iv. 11

dpOarpodovrcla, iii. 23

oh, lili. 16

ws, Ph. 14, 16

Pantenus in India, p. 392

Papias, p. 47; writings of, id. ; life and
teaching of, p. 48; account of, given
by Eusebius, p. 49; traditions col-
lected by, p. 51 8q.; references to
the Canonical writings, p. 51 Sq-3

428

silenee of Eusebius, p. 52 ; views in-
ferred from his associates, p. 53

Parsism, resemblances to, in Essen-
ism, p.88,387 8q.; spread by the de-
struction of the Persian empire, p.
388; influence of, p. 389

participle used for imperative, iii. 16

Paschal controversy, p. 59, 63

Paul (St) visits Phrygia on his second
missionary journey, p. 23; had not
visited Colosse when he wrote, p.
23 8q.$ visits Phrygia on his third
journey, p. 24; silence about per-
sonal relations with Colosse, p. 28;
at Ephesus, p. 30, 95 8q.; at Rome,
p. 32; mission of Epaphras to, 7b.;
meets with Onesimus, p. 33, 3123
despatches three letters, p. 33; visits
Colosse, p. 41; his plans after his
release, Ph. 22; uses an amanuensis,
iv. 18; his signature, iv. 18, Ph. 19;
coincidences with words of our Lord,
ii. 22; his teaching on the univer-
sality of the Gospel, p. 99; on the
kingdom of Christ, i. 13 sq.; on the
orders of angels, i. 16 8q.; on phi-
losophy, ii. 8; on the Incarnation,
ii. g; on the abolition of distinc-
tions, iii. 11; on slavery, iii. 22 sq.,
Pp. 323 8q.; his cosmogony and the-
ology, p. 101 sq.; his answer to the
Colossian heresy, p. 115 8q.; his
Christology, p. 122, i. 15 8q.; his
relations with Philemon, p. 304 sq.;
connects baptism and death, ii. 11,
20, iii. 3; makes use of metaphors
from the mysteries, i. 26, 28; from
the stadium, ii. 18, iii. 14; his rapid
change of metaphor, ii. 7

Paul (St) Epistles of, correspondences
with the Apocalypse—on the Person
of Christ, p. 41; warning against
lukewarmness, p. 42 ; against pride
of wealth, p. 43

Paul (St) apocryphal Epistle of, to
the Laodiceans, p. 281 sq.

Pedanius Secundus, execution of his
slaves, p. 322

Person of Christ, St Paul and St John

INDEX.

on, p. 41 8q.; St Paul’s answer to.
the Colossian heresy, p. 115 sq., i.
15 8q.

personal pronoun used for reflexive,
1. 20, 22

Peter (St) and the Church in Asia
Minor, p. 41

petrifying stream at Colosse, p. 15

Pharisees, p. 82; relation to Essenes,
p. 82, 356 8q., 376, 378

Philemon, p. 31, 370, 8q.; legendary
history of, p. 305 ; his wife, p. 306;
his son, p. 308

Philemon, Epistle to; introduction to,
p- 303; character of, p. 304; analy-
sis of, p. 314.8q.; different estimates
of, p. 316 sq.; compared with a letter
of Pliny, p. 318

Philip the Apostle, in Asia, p. 45 8q.3
confused with Philip the Evangelist,
P- 45

Philippopolis, synod of, p. 64

Philo, on the Essenes, p. 350, 380; his
use of Logos, i. 15

Phrygia, p. 17 sq.; meaning of the
phrase in St Luke, p. 23; religious
tendencies of, p. 97; see Paul (St)

Pistis Sophia, p. 273

Pliny the elder, his account of the
Essenes, p. 83

Pliny the younger, a letter of, p. 318
Sq.

pleroma, p. 257 sq.

Plutonium, at Hierapolis, p. 12

Polycarp, martyrdom of, p. 49

poverty, respect paid to, by Essenes
and by Christ, p. 417 sq.

Pretorius on the Epistle to the Lao-
diceans, p. 300

Pythagoreanism and Essenism, p. 380
sq.; disappearance of, p. 383

wdOos, iii. 5

Tapakanely, li. 2

maparauBdvew, ii. 6

Tapdmrrwpd, li. 13

wapetvat els, 1. 6

mapéxecbat, iv. I

mapnyopla, iv. 11

mappnola, év mappnola, li. 15, Ph. 8

INDEX.

was, was 5 kbopos, i. 16; waca krlovs,
i. 153 7a wdyra, i. 16

mwaThp, 6 Oeds warp, i. 33 waThp udp,
i. 2

mavecOa, Ph. 7

miBavoroyla, li. 4

muxpalvecOat, iii. 19

misTés, wisTol ddeNGol, i. 2

mdeovetla, iii. 5

awAnpogpopety, iv. 12

mwAnpogopla, li. 2

mwAnpodr, i. 25, iv. 17

TrHpwua, i. 19, li. Q, P- 257 8d-

TAT HOV, li. 23

whovros, i, 27

mopvela, iii. 5

mpavrns, iii, 12

mpecBevrys, mpecBirns, Ph. 8

mpd wdvrwv, i. 17

m@poakove, i. 5

mpéos, ii. 23, Ph. 5

mpookaprepeiaOat, iv. 2

mwpocwroAnuyla, iii. 25

mpwrbrokos, i. 15, 18

girocodla, ii. 8

POopd, ii. 22

ppoynors, i. g |

pudrakrnptoy, p. 69

Wards, iii. 16

Quartodeciman controversy,
Quinisextine Council, p. 68

P- 59; 63

Readings, harmonized with corre-
sponding passages in the Epistle to
the Ephesians, p. 246 (iii. 6); p. 247
(ii. 21, V. 19)

readings, various, p. 249 (i. 3); p- 250
(i, 4, 1. 7); p. 251 (i. 12,1. 14,1. 22);
P. 252 (ii. 2); p. 253 (ii. 16); p. 254
(ii. 18, ii, 23); p. 255 (iv. 8); p. 256
(iv. 15)

Renan, on the meaning of Galatia in
St Paul and St Luke, p. 25; on the
Epistle to Philemon, p. 318

resurrection of the body, p. 88, 415

Revelation ; see Apocalypse

Robbers’ Synod, p. 65

Roman slavery, p. 321

429

Rome, Onesimus at, p. 312; St Paul
at, p. 32
pigoov, ii. 7

Sabbath, observance of, by Essenes, p.
84, 410 :

Sabeans, p. 405

sacrifices prohibited by Essenes, p. 89,

' 371

Sadduceeism, p. 82

Sagaris, bishop of Laodicea, p. 63

Samanzi, p. 392 sq.

Sampseans, p. 374

Sarmane, p. 392 sq.

satisfactorie, sufferings of Christ, re-
garded as, i. 25

Secundus, see Pedanius Secundus

Seven churches, literature relating to,
p. 1

Sibylline Oracle, p. 96 :

silence of Kusebius on canonical books,
p- 52 8q.; of the New Testament
about the Essenes, p. 398

slave martyrs, p. 326

slavery, Hebrew, p. 319; Greek, p. 320;
Roman, p. 321; St Paul’s treatment
of, p. 323 sq.; attitude of Christian-
ity towards, p. 325 sq.; prohibited
by Essenes, p. 417; legislation of
Constantine, p. 327; of J ustinian,
p- 328; abolition of, ib.

Socrates on Novatianism in Phrygia,
p. 98

Sophia of Valentinus, p. 267; Sophia
Achamoth, p. 268

stadium, metaphor from the, ii. 18

Stapleton on the Epistle to the Laodi-
ceans, Pp. 300

Strabo on Buddhism, p. 391 sq.

sunworship, p. 87, 374 8q., 382, 387

odBBara, ii. 16

odpé, 76 oGua Tis capkés, i. 22

ZKvbOns, iii, 11

copia, i. 9, 28, il. 3, iii. 16

omhdyxva (7a); iii. 12, Ph. 7, 12

orepéwma, li. 5

oroxeta (rd), ii. 8

ovrayuryely, ii. 8

oupBiBdagew, li, 2, 19

430

cuvarxudrwros, iv. 10

cvv demos, ii. 19, ill. 14
ovvdovndos, i. 7, iv. 7

giveots, i. Q, li. 2

ovorpariuirys, Ph. 2

cipa, TO oma Tis capxés, ii. 17
TWLATLKGS, li. Q

Tacitus on the earthquake at Laodicea,
P- 39

Talmud, supposed etymologies of Es-
sene in, p. 352 8q., 357 8q.; supposed
allusions to the Essenes, p. 364 sq.

Testaments, Old and New, p. 119

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
on the orders of angels, i. 16

theanthropism of the New Testament,
p- 119

thundering legion, p. 61

Thyatira, dyes of, p. 4

Timotheus, his position in these epi-
stles, i. 1, Ph. 1; ‘the brother,’ i. 1

Tivoli compared with the valley of the
Lycus, p. 3

ravertine deposits in the valley of the
Lycus, p. 3

Trimetaria, asurname of Laodicea, p. 18

Tychicus, iv. 7, p. 35, 314

Tarewoppoovvy, iii. 12

Taéls, li. 5

rédevos, i. 28

ris (indef.), St Paul’s use of, ii. 8

rotodros wy, Ph. g, 12

Gérkew, Ph. 13; O€dNew ev, ii. 18

INDEX.

6éAnua Geod, i. x

Oeuedody, 1. 23

Geb ns, TO Oetov, ii. g
Ouvyydvew, ii. 21

Ovickew, adrobvnckey, ii. 20
OptapBever, ii. 15

Ouuds, iii. 8

Gvpa Tob Néyou, iv. 3

Uuvos, iii. 16

Umevayrtos, li. 14

Umromovy, i. II

vorépnud, 1. 24, P. 269 8q.

Valentinianism, different forms of, p.
266 sq.

Valentinians accept St Paul and St
John, p. 270

Valentinus, use of pleroma by, p. 265

vathikin, p. 368

versions of the Epistle to the Lao-

* diceans, Latin, p. 291; Bohemian,
German, and English, p. 297 sq.

Word, the, p. ror, see Logos, Christ
Wycliffe, on the apocryphal Epistle to
the Laodiceans, p. 297

Yavana or Yona, p. 390

Zeller on Essenism, p. 380 8q.

Zend Avesta, p. 387

Zoroastrianism and Essenism, p. 387
8d.

CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY C., J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,

WORKS BY THE

REV. J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D.

ST PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. |
A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations.
Fifth Edition, revised. 8vo. 12s,

ST PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations,
Fourth Edition, revised. 8vo. 12s,

ST CLEMENT OF ROME. THE TWO EPISTLES
TO THE CORINTHIANS. A Revised Text, with Intro-
duction and Notes. 8vo. 8s, 6d.

ST CLEMENT OF ROME.
An Appendix, containing the newly-recovered portions. With
Introductions, Notes, and Translation of the whole. 8yo.
8s. 6d.

ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE ENGLISH
NEW TESTAMENT. Second Edition, revised. Crown 8vo,
6s,

MACMILLAN AND CO. LONDON.

Ie AT ESR RS

pene ng See PE TYRE ROSIE ET Bn

“pyia ching meanenesny aparece
‘ ‘ ; rie

.
-
Vy
ws
+
e
mY
“5
Sala

n*

a a)
- r .
male ay

oe;

2" ae
ate ime
bX sa

a

ul
eee

’

yt a

i? Bre

NE

ay
= i. ~
- ye ‘ “ie Vo
mcrae Ph ‘Re
wee: et

v4 he : y
PPP PR i ay Jr

me 4e ae

20. eR

ae

SP

<3 ew
=.

Pea en RE, Se oh ST tee
et

——_

See eye eee

SS

a
me

wr

Soa

a ee teh

eee

t
4
4
vA
t
4
a
}.

ee

7

fT ATP

PEK NOES

Neha ts fi.

Pe a Te es nd

ae

ihe?
Hl

fe
bith)

f),
heh
iB

ue

My ay . 4
VG id ie

~

weit: sine 4 ‘aiid dete 7 reuey
ts Orne if 2 + a ng Ieee

wy - ie Ds re way . ‘

ML CA AIL AERA ALA ALA ID + SPAWN Mt BENG
BOTTING Le i j j ae ion sth ak ;

raja)
HE fig thes}

isftgi ype

<

aay

Pabieen a s

eri fitiee Pye hee pew

Bee

OS ear
*, | lt I neat
tp ehh aMmP TH es eon es ys
/

~
4

Pe ie) reed

5

NTT ee oe aes

Dake. oe ee ee ee
>
St tere sytem Here

~

TI? REE)

ar

SFPD